Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Ferry Safety

[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report of the Transport Committee of Session 1994–95 on Cross Channel Safety, (House of Commons Paper No. 352) and the Government reply thereto published as the Fifth Special Report of Session 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 642).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Paul Flynn: We have had dreadful proof of the mighty power of the sea, the tide and the wind, and of how puny our efforts are to deal with mother nature at her worst. I refer to the unfolding catastrophe of the Sea Empress, which is relevant to this debate because the problems at Milford Haven are similar. All hon. Members pay tribute to the heroic work of the tireless salvers. We must look for the cause of this tragedy, which is the same as the threat to ferry safety.
This is an incredible, sorry story of Government complacency towards the compliance of the maritime industry. This is a story of an industry that has, over many years—with the Government's help—pursued minimum safety standards in search of maximum profits.
This debate is in my name as a Back Bencher, but it was also sought by the Transport Select Committee. It was the first time in the history of Parliament that the Committee had sought a debate. I shall concentrate on the work of the Committee, on which I have the great honour to serve.

Mr. Graham Allen: Does my hon. Friend accept that had the Government implemented the Donaldson recommendations on adequately powerful tugs—one tug in the western approaches—and that had the two tugs that are in position been called from Scotland and southern England and put into place at Milford Haven, what has sadly been an accident could have been prevented from becoming a disaster on the coast of Wales?

Mr. Flynn: We are all conscious of the remarkable complacency of just two days ago, when we were told that all but 17 of the recommendations of the Donaldson report had been put into place. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who is currently at Milford Haven—he had hoped to participate in the debate—is very knowledgeable about sea safety because he worked in the industry for many years. He is convinced from his research that the power of the tugs was hopelessly inadequate—the vessel was pulling the tugs, rather than the tugs pulling the vessel.
This was a key recommendation of Donaldson after the Braer disaster, and it has not been implemented. These matters will be investigated. The Government must demonstrate that they will make a far greater effort to support the marvellous work of the salvers. Unfortunately, the equipment that they have is not up to the massive job before them.
The Select Committee decided to investigate cross-channel safety because it was concerned about the potential danger of the channel tunnel—a new road was to go under a large stretch of water, and that had never happened before. The Committee—which had no axe to grind and no interests in these matters, other than to serve the cause of safety—came out with a different view. We were reminded that crossing the channel is nothing new. Fifty years before the birth of Christ, Julius Caesar twice took an army back and forth across the channel, as he recorded in "De Bello Gallico". He states:
Uti ex tanto navium numero tot navigationibus neque hoc neque superiore anno ullo omnino navis, quae milites portaret desideraretur.
Those wonderful words can, I am sure, be understood by all those who have had the benefit of a comprehensive education in good Labour-controlled authorities. But for the victims of public school education perhaps I had better explain that Caesar wrote triumphantly that, of all those ships—he brought across 800—and in all those voyages, not a single ship carrying troops in that or the previous year was missing. That was an incredible achievement and surely now, 2,000 years later, when we have become so sophisticated, we should be able to relax and feel entirely happy about taking a journey across the channel.
The story that we, as members of the Committee, heard unfold in the evidence was not that the channel tunnel was dangerous—in fact, we concluded that the statistical evidence showed that the channel tunnel was 600 times safer than the M4. As a result of what we heard, three members of the Committee said that they would never take their families on board such ferries again until major improvements had been made. How has the ferry industry got away with it for 13 years?
The rule for all other forms of passenger transport is failsafe. When something goes wrong, when a weakness is identified, measures are taken to ensure that if the systems fail again, they will do so in a safe condition. But the condition of channel ferries is such that if catastrophic flooding occurs, they will not fail in safe conditions, but will fail lethally and catastrophically. When we heard the evidence, the shipping industry's patronising attitude was alarming. Those in the industry said that we had nothing to worry about because the men in suits, with titles such as admiral and sir, would not do anything that was unsafe, and nor would the Government. They told us to trust the Government and said that we had nothing to worry our little heads about—it has ever been thus.
The extraordinarily influential shipping lobby is as powerful now as it was in the last century, when the merchant shipping legislation of 1850, which had been a major improvement, was abandoned by Parliament under pressure from the profit-hungry shipping companies of the time. That lobby still commands the unique backwater, where safety rules are archaic and primitive when judged by the standards of other passenger safety. The families involved in the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster said:
Of all forms of transport where an organisation is responsible for the safety of customers, RoRo ferries represent the highest risk to the user.


The Royal Institute of Naval Architects had an even starker warning. It said:
A collision with one of the new fast ferries and a tanker would create a disaster of enormous consequences.
But 13 years after the sinking of the first British ro-ro, no plans existed when we made our report—although they are being introduced now—to correct fully the design fault that threatens 2,000 deaths in a single incident.
A ferry has been in difficulties for 18 hours in the English channel. In the past week a ferry ran aground on a journey from Germany to Scandinavia. In the past month a ferry capsized in Indonesia in two minutes. All the publicity surrounding that incident involved the two survivors and the Government told me that they would not even be investigating the incident. They were not interested because it was not a British ferry and it was not in British waters.
Very few people are aware of the first disaster in Britain, although the warning bells should have been heard at that time. The disaster involved the capsizing of the European Gateway, a freight ship, in 1982. It left no lasting imprint on the memory of the British people because only six people died. A collision with another vessel caused the flooding of the Gateway's car deck. The Royal Academy of Engineering warned that the cure for the fundamental fault had not been implemented for pre-1990 ferries and only peripherally for some post-1990 ferries. A collision will be the most likely cause of the next roll-over accident. In the past three years there have been 15 significant collisions in St. George's channel, 35 in the English channel and 58 in the North sea. None of them was serious, but British ro-ros were involved in 15 of them.
After the Zeebrugge disaster, Baroness Thatcher rightly said that she
understood that it was a fundamental design of these vessels that was the problem, and that something would have to be looked at very quickly to reassure the public.
Some 48 hours later the Government said something different. Presumably having been got at by the ferry industry, the then Secretary of State for Transport said:
The loss of the Herald was not due to design problems. It was entirely due to operational error.
It is a disgraceful indictment of the Government that they should try to build confidence in something that is inherently dangerous. As with most ro-ro ferry disasters, it was caused by a combination of two factors. Human error causes 73 per cent. of all marine accidents and the remaining accidents are caused by other faults. However, in the case of the ro-ro ferry, the Government—in the form of the Prime Minister—were originally right to identify the problem as a design fault, but they then decided to change their reaction, under pressure from the ferry industry.
When the Estonia went down, the Government's reaction was even less excusable. I can remember the event vividly as I was in the Baltic at the time, at a harbour at Klaipeda. The weather conditions were dreadful. We all remember the awful tragedy of the Estonia when a minor mechanical failure caused nearly 1,000 deaths—people had no chance. Our Government's disgraceful reaction was transparently dishonest: they

tried to blame Johnny foreigner. A pantomime was played out at Dover in the presence of the then Secretary of State for Transport. Hoses were played on the sides of the vessel where the door shut in order to illustrate that there was no leak. Any roll on/roll off ferry with such a small leak could reach port easily; no disaster could or has taken place because of such leaks. It would take a much larger ingress of water to cause the ro-ro to capsize. What took place at Dover where, to add credibility to the claim that our ships were superior to others, water from hose pipes was splashed on to the door—with the authority of the then Secretary of State for Transport—was a meaningless public relations exercise. It was meant not to inform the British public, but to deceive them into believing that there was no dangerous design fault. No ro-ro accident could, ever has or will result from such a leak.
It is sobering to remind ourselves that the Estonia complied with the best safety of life at sea standards, known as the SOLAS 90 standards. Three quarters of our ferries that operate from British ports do not comply with the standards that the Estonia achieved. It is clear that the Estonia was safer than three quarters of the ferries that come out of our British ports. That message should have been conveyed to the British public by the then Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. David Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Estonia was a totally different design? He said that there were design problems. The bow door of the Estonia opened upwards right into the water. No British ferry that I am aware of has a similar arrangement of the bow doors, and certainly no British ferry sailing out of Dover.

Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong when he says that the design is totally different. The architecture of the bow door on the Estonia was different from the design of other ferries, which may have had a contributing effect—we do not have the full report on the Estonia yet. Nevertheless, the reason why the ferry went down was not mechanical failure or the different shape of the bow door. The ferry flooded and capsized catastrophically because it had a flat car deck, which, when flooded with water, forces the ship to list, capsize rapidly and sink to the bottom. That is common to every roll on/roll off ferry.
Many other unfortunate events might have affected the Estonia. If there had been a collision, the water would have got in, regardless of the shape of the bow door. The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to a detail. I shall discuss those matters later.
In the Select Committee, we were all bemused when the Secretary of State told us that he thought that it was plausible that 2,000 passengers could be evacuated from a doomed ferry in 30 minutes.
I pursued that matter with many parliamentary questions, which revealed an even more alarming position. They revealed that no evacuation exercise involving more than 500 people had ever taken place. The Health and Safety Executive said that such an exercise, with 2,000 people, would be "very dangerous".
On the ferry the Pride of Hampshire, 600 passengers were expected to shin down rope ladders to escape. In one exercise that was held, some Wrens—able-bodied and fit—were too frightened to use the dangling ladders


at the side of the boat. What on earth would happen in a real-life emergency? How would a boatload of panic-stricken, frail humanity cope? That is everyone's nightmare.
In the exercises, the evacuations took a couple of hours for 200 people; in real-life emergencies, on the Lakonia and the Achille Lauro, they took several hours. We were told that the International Maritime Organisation is likely to resist attempts to increase the SOLAS 90 evacuation times to 30 minutes even though new, faster ferries can carry up to 2,000 passengers.
The Government's Marine Safety Agency shared our gloom. It said that many of the 145 countries that make up the IMO have
different agendas. The flags of convenience countries seem to use their shipping registers as a source of revenue rather than a mechanism for international standards, with a consequent impact on safety standards.

Mr. Tony Banks: Ferries encourage people to drink a large amount of alcohol while they make the trip. Getting as many bevvies down as possible is part of the fun. Many people taking part in an evacuation will therefore be inebriated, making it even more difficult. Perhaps the ferries should be dry.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall illustrate the difference between the artificial evacuation and a real-life situation, because there are many other problems. The basis of the safety case for those ferries is hopelessly flawed, for the reason that my hon. Friend suggests and for many others.
The shipping industry repeatedly rubbished our report even before it was published. When that unanimous report was circulated, the industry claimed that its vessels complied with international standards—but international standards are deplorably low. The ferry that went down in two minutes off Indonesia complied with international standards.
We suggested that the only way to ensure that customers had knowledge with which to make a choice was for the MSA to inspect every ship and give it a hotel-type star rating, from zero to five, so that if we arrived on the quay or booked a ferry crossing we would know whether the ship was a one-star, two-star or five-star ship. Those stars would be given on the basis of buoyancy, survivability and evacuation procedures.
The MSA said that it was interested in that classification when we suggested it, but it was slightly alarmed when we gave details of the type of rating we meant—because at present, three quarters of ferries operating from British ports would get no star. The rest would have a single star for reaching SOLAS 90 level—the same level as the Estonia. Four stars would be given in future for vessels that would stay upright in the water long enough to evacuate all their passengers and crew in a credible future incident. Five stars would go to those which added sound evacuation techniques to that, but we are many years away from that.
We sounded a loud blast of warning about ro-ro vessels and we accepted comments that our report was frightening in many ways. The reason was that we were genuinely alarmed by the evidence that we heard. I am sure that the relatives of the 1,100 people who died in the Herald of Free Enterprise and Estonia disasters would be grateful to

any parliamentarians who sounded a warning before those events, and the people of Milford Haven will be grateful to their Member of Parliament for having sounded loud notes of warning three months ago, when another vessel went aground off St. Ann's head.
The distinguished naval architect, Professor Rawson, said that
nothing has really changed since the Herald went down".
With the Government as its willing accomplice, the British shipping industry has proved that it cares more for its profits than for its passengers.
I shall try to clarify my argument for the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), because he will try to dismiss it with the usual obfuscation produced by the Government. The cause of the Estonia tragedy was that the bow doors failed structurally, but the reason for the 900 deaths was that the ship capsized and sank so rapidly that very few could be evacuated, and the reason for that was an inherently dangerous vessel. The design was the problem.
The cause of the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise was that the open bow doors allowed water to sweep in. The reason why so many people on board died—193—was that the vessel capsized and sank in 90 seconds because it had an inherently dangerous design.
The cause of the sinking of the European Gateway was a collision that allowed water on to the vehicle deck. The reason for the loss of crew and cargo was that the vessel capsized and sank rapidly because it had an inherently dangerous design.
I hope that that is clear enough even for the hon. Member for Dover to grasp.
The Government responded to our report, but it was a woeful response. We said that ferries should remain upright long enough for passengers be evacuated and that, if the IMO disagreed, we should act immediately, not wait for the next century. The Government said that they could not guarantee buoyancy but that they would seek IMO agreement, and seek regional agreement if that failed. They were committed to the shortest possible timetable.
I pay a rare tribute to the Government, because they acted with greater speed than they have before, serious efforts are being made and the United Kingdom is in the lead in dragging the other European countries and the world towards safer standards. We are light years from approaching an acceptable safety standard, but the Government are doing something about that and we are grateful that they listened to the Select Committee's recommendations on that subject. Nevertheless we have those pious intentions without any specific commitments.
The Select Committee also asked for a trial evacuation of 1,000 passengers in order to test the Government's absurd belief that 2,000 people could be evacuated from a stricken ship in 30 minutes. The Government agreed in principle to our request, but they repeated the MSA's claim that a trial evacuation was "very dangerous". In the Government's words, the
possibility of injury cannot be ignored".
If a trial evacuation in ideal conditions would be "very dangerous", a real evacuation of 2,000 panicking people in an emergency could involve many deaths. One trial evacuation of 210 people took more than four hours.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Although television cameras were invited to film the practice


evacuation at Dover, the Transport Select Committee was not invited to observe it. That would have been the fair and sensible thing to do if the Government were confident about the efficacy and the success of evacuation procedures.

Mr. Flynn: Committee members were painfully disappointed that they were not invited to Dover that weekend. The Government must be very relieved that we did not witness the exercise, because it proved our point very vividly.
The Select Committee urged the Government to publish the safety surveys carried out by classification societies for the MSA. That is an important recommendation. However, the Government—who espouse free choice and open government—said that they will not publish the information because it is commercially confidential. That is an unnecessary denial of information on a matter of life and death.

Mr. Allen: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), is my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) aware that I sought a meeting with the MSA and to accompany a ships inspector and surveyor in Southampton on 2 April? Such a meeting was perfectly in order according to the head of the agency, Mr. Robin Bradley, but when it was checked with the private office of Lord Goschen, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, I was told that it would be wholly inappropriate for me to visit the MSA and to accompany a ships inspector.

Mr. Flynn: That is another chapter in the Government's history of cover-ups on that matter. The Government are attempting to conceal the truth.
The Government dismissed our request for a system of star ratings, saying that such a system would not be perfect as it could not take into account human error. That is a cop-out and an astonishing answer from a Government who introduced imperfect league tables for schools and who wish to monitor standards in every other sphere of life. Comparable standards of survivability for each vessel could be established scientifically—there is no problem with that.
The Select Committee claimed that the star system would give companies a commercial interest in improving safety standards. The Government replied that the firms already had a commercial interest in safety standards because of the disastrous effects of accidents on business. That is nonsense: the ferry trade has suffered no adverse effects as a result of recent disasters. The Government dismissed the Zeebrugge ferry disaster as "human error" and the Estonia disaster was blamed on Johnny foreigner. Zeebrugge was a cheap disaster for the ferry industry, costing only £90 million—which was shared in the industry—and the Government have conspired to build public confidence in an inherently dangerous ferry design. One should compare that cost with the £1 million a day that ferries can make crossing the English channel in summer.
The Select Committee requested that full safety information about each vessel be used in publicity material and displayed on each ship. The Government, hilariously, said that they would publish a list and create

a hotline for public inquiries. Presumably it will be like the cones hotline. The Select Committee recommended the publication of comparative safety assessments of new and bigger high-speed vessels. The Government said no and declared that they are happy with the present IMO and other rules. However, they will examine the safety of high-speed craft. The channel tunnel had to undergo a safety assessment—that is the only way of achieving proper safety standards. Bigger and faster vessels are being built, as we saw on television a few days ago. They will carry more people and there is the potential for even greater disaster.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend and I are interested in fair competition. Does he agree that there is disparity of treatment in this case? The operators of the channel tunnel were forced to adopt very strict safety standards—and they were proud to do it—but their competitors, the ferries, are allowed to get away with action that is commercially and competitively unfair.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and the Select Committee reached the same conclusion.
Safety has improved somewhat, but it has deteriorated as well. Evidence of that deterioration was provided by the sea safety group—a body of international shipowners, pilots and captains. It said that the money-spinning services were increasing to a worrying degree and that, by maximising facilities to boost profits, designers had created their own "Hampton court maze" on ships for passengers. The group asked: if professional sailors did not know how to find their way around the ships, how on earth would people be able to muster in the event of a disaster? It supported the Select Committee's report and argued for all the improvements that we suggested, including the star system.
Presumably in answer to our request for a practice evacuation involving 1,000 people, an exercise took place at Dover. The Government have stuck to their claim that it should take only 30 minutes to evacuate a vessel: that is their benchmark. The Dover evacuation involved a group of young, able-bodied people—some of whom pretended to be disabled. They knew what was to happen and the evacuation took place in daylight while the boat was tied to the quay. Instead of evacuating 2,000 people from the vessel in 30 minutes, it is reported that only 315 were evacuated in that time.

Mr. David Shaw: That is total rubbish. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flynn: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he can make his own speech. I refer to the only report that I have about the evacuation from The Mail on Sunday. It cited that figure.

Mr. Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is total rubbish. I was there; the hon. Gentleman was not. It is absolute rubbish.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) knows perfectly well that that is not a point of order. However, it may be a point for debate and, if the hon. Gentleman seeks to catch my eye, I may be able to help him.

Mr. Flynn: The Mail on Sunday of 14 January said:
At the prescribed 30-minute point, when everyone should have been in the life-rafts, only an estimated 315 were clear of the ship".


The chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency, who was monitoring the exercise, said:
If this had been a matter of life and death, they would have gone down more rapidly".
Would people move more quickly in the event of a real disaster? Rather than a group of fit, young people, passengers would usually constitute a mixture of humanity—the very young and the very old, the disabled, many who were fast asleep, some who were drunk, some who were pregnant. All would be terrified. Paramedics were on hand during that exercise, and all of those involved knew exactly what was occurring.
Yet even in that useless and hopelessly artificial exercise, nowhere near 2,000 people were evacuated within 30 minutes. The disasters that the exercise was designed to mimic almost always occur on the open sea, at night and perhaps in storm conditions. There may be a fire or the boat may list or capsize in the water. The exercise at Dover was rigged and of no value—although it proved our point.
Ministers will make much of the recent negotiations. The experts who inquired into the Estonia disaster recommended that ferries be allowed to remain afloat with 50 centimetres of water on the car deck. The IMO rejected that recommendation, but it agreed to adopt SOLAS 90 standards worldwide for all ro-ro ferries. In preparing for the debate, I asked several independent bodies with expertise in the field for their impressions on the present position.
The Royal Institute of Naval Architects told me:
The assumption of 50 centimetres of water on the car deck has to be seen for what it is; a wholly arbitrary standard imposed in panic by the Scandinavians after the Estonia disaster.
Who would know whether there was 51 or 49 cm of water on the car deck? The only real solution must involve sponsons, bulkheads, and longitudinal, transverse or increased buoyancy chambers on the boat.
According to the Royal Institute of Naval Architects:
Some ferries … are unlikely to collect that amount of water (50 cm) except in unreasonably severe collision conditions…However,…many ferries could collect such water (50 cm) with a simple collision, suggesting that it is not enough!
The Royal Academy of Engineering is
not satisfied that significant progress has been made:
—there is no agreement that the evacuation time should be the criterion for the period that the ships remain upright
—the basis for agreement, if reached on a Regional Basis…will probably invoke significantly smaller volumes of water than recommended by the Panel of Experts."
So there is already a compromise on safety standards.
The Consumers Association, which has been studying the matter most productively for many years, said that
operators should be allowed a maximum of two refit periods to implement changes to existing ferries which would bring us to Spring of 1998. Events after that would be over three years after the Estonia disaster. The key point here is that precious time has already been lost: a decision must be taken urgently before more lives are sacrificed unnecessarily.
I press the Government to rethink the star system and the survivability and buoyancy standards that the Select Committee requested. Will they unilaterally adopt the 50 cm rule, inadequate as it is, even if other European countries do not accept it? Will they provide a timetable for any modifications? The Consumers Association is arguing for spring 1998 at the latest. Do the Government

accept that? Do they accept the lack of a link between evacuation time and the survivability of ferries in SOLAS 90 and the new 50 cm proposal? That was a fatal flaw.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke made grave allegations about the Government. He said that their failure to implement the Donaldson report made them responsible for the catastrophe in Milford Haven. We all look on horrified and impotent as we witness an environmental catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. We know what it has already done to nature and the beaches there. On present damage, they will probably not be free of pollution for many years. The damage to the tourist industry is incalculable, but we know what happened in Brittany and Cornwall when the Torrey Canyon spilled its oil. It could be far worse in Milford Haven.
This is a disaster of enormous proportions. The reason for it must rest with the House and the Government. We were far too permissive with the billion-pound-profit oil industry—the most profitable industry in the world—when it wanted to cut costs by using inadequate, ramshackle vessels or new vessels of inadequate design. We have continually and permissively failed to impose a rigorous safety regime on all shipping. We now see the results of that in the Sea Empress disaster. We could well suffer another catastrophe such as the Estonia, the European Gateway or the Herald of Free Enterprise.
An accident involving a roll on/roll off ferry could cost 2,000 lives. We know that the marine industry is run at minimum safety for maximum profit. Roll on/roll off ferries do not fail safe. They fail lethally and catastrophically.

Mr. David Shaw: At present, my constituency of Dover is suffering because the roads have been cut off by snow. We heard on the news that 500 lorries and 200 cars were unable to get out of Dover yesterday and that the A20 had to be cleared. There is a lesson to be learnt here. Not only should we thank the emergency and other services for the way in which they reacted yesterday, but my hon. Friend the Minister should re-examine the delays in dualling the A2 into Dover. It is vital that there should be access to Dover via both the A20 and the A2 as access is vital to our ferry industry.
I also thank the emergency services for their work in Deal on the flooding in the high street and around the seafront. It has been a terrible time for many of my constituents.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I even disagreed with his Latin quotation. I shall not quibble about the accuracy of his Latin, but he tried to make out that Julius Caesar was one of the first people safely to cross the English channel. A bronze age ship was recently discovered in Dover, which suggests that people were crossing the English channel safely and landing at Dover 4,000 years ago. We have a longer history of safe ships in Dover than the hon. Gentleman suggested.
There is a cavalier attitude among Labour Members with regard to ship and ferry safety. Our ships, and Dover's ferry industry, have a tremendous record on safety and carrying passengers. In the United Kingdom, there are 50 million passenger journeys by ship each year


and some 20 million of them are on Dover ferries. The safety record has been extraordinary when one considers the time period. Even with the tragic disaster of the Herald of Free Enterprise, we have managed to create an industry that, in terms of passenger travel, is one of the safest in the world. This year, with the new ferry company, Sea France, joining P and O and Stena Sealink, we shall have some 20 freight and passenger ships—as well as hovercraft and Hoverspeed—operating out of Dover.
The ships are constantly checked and monitored. I pay tribute to the Marine Safety Agency, which does an excellent job of checking those ferries and ships. Sometimes, the ferry operators are pre-warned because the checks are exhaustive, thorough and detailed, but ferry operators are often not warned about the safety inspectors' visits. The safety agency staff take a ferry crossing without telling anybody and check the safety procedures on board. That is a powerful incentive to get the safety procedures right.
Our ships in Dover are modern ships fitted with modern safety equipment. Safety is regarded as absolutely critical for our ferry industry. I believe that ro-ro ferries are very safe indeed.
The 1986 Herald of Free Enterprise disaster had a devastating effect on my constituents. Many of them lost family members. Many of them knew or were friendly with families who lost someone. The tragedy was devastating in my area. I am afraid, however, that the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster was not caused by design problems. There was one simple, basic reason why it went down—alcoholism among certain members of the crew.
It is a tragedy to re-explore the matter, but there is a lesson that we have to learn. There was a terrible human error. The doors were not closed and no one checked. The procedures on board ship were a disaster and alcoholism was rampant among the crew. The House may wonder how that state of affairs came about and why there was such a lack of discipline. In reality, the officers were not in control—extreme left-wing trade unionists were in control of the ship.

Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman has reduced the debate to a ludicrous level by suggesting that the disaster was political. Families of Herald of Free Enterprise victims gave moving evidence to the inquiry that the tragedy was not caused by human error. Although human error is responsible for 73 per cent. of accidents, the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster was caused by a combination of human error and the ship's design. There could have been drunken crews on other vessels, but they would not have capsized in 90 seconds.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will believe what he wants to believe, even if it is totally untrue. Alcoholism caused the Herald of Free Enterprise to go down. People did not do their jobs because they were drunk. Before 1986, and in 1986, there was too much drinking by crews on board. P and O stopped that. Today, anyone found to have consumed alcohol while crewing a ferry is instantly dismissed. In 1986, extreme left-wing trade unionists would not allow the ships' officers to discipline crew members who drank alcohol on duty. Moderate trade

unionists were upset about that because they could see the problems coming and the difficulties that would result. The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster could have been foreseen, but not in the way that the hon. Member for Newport, West suggested. It could have been foreseen by the lack of discipline—a state of affairs enforced by the extreme left-wing trade unionists who were running the crews in those days.
The situation today is totally different. Management has taken control of the ships and the officers are in charge. Proper procedures are enforced at every level. Warning lights monitor the closing of bow doors and other key areas. Closed circuit television constantly scans the car decks and bow doors. The crew and officers make frequent checks on safety procedures and on seals around the bow doors. No alcohol is drunk by officers or crew before going on board or when on board, because that is banned. Today, we have superb officers and crew on ships in Dover. They are well-trained, able people who take safety seriously.
There are no ferries in Dover of a design similar to the Estonia. The bow doors on that ship were open, which of course was dangerous. In addition, they were not properly checked and the fastenings were deficient. Dover ferries are totally different from the Estonia.

Mr. Flynn: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Estonia was sailing with her bow doors open in the Baltic that night in September? Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Is he saying that the bow doors were left open after the ship left Tallinn?

Mr. Shaw: Either the fastenings were such that the bow doors were beginning to open, or the fastenings had failed and the bow doors opened as soon as the sea became rough. We know that the bow doors on the Estonia opened in a way that no Dover ferry bow doors can. It is impossible for a Dover ferry's bow doors to open in the way that the bow doors on the Estonia opened.
The hon. Member for Newport, West dismissed the SOLAS 90 test in a cavalier and irresponsible way. That test has been applied to a number of Dover ferries in model form in a tank. The models had a hole equivalent to 9 m put in their sides, from top to bottom, and the equivalent of 50 cm of water put in. The model Dover ferries did not sink in those circumstances. Water rolled out as much as it rolled in, and the tank model remained stable. New designs are being considered all the time, which might make further improvements possible. Higher decks, for example, will transform the current structures. Catamarans and other such vessels are being considered in Dover.
The constant improvements to safety are made possible by profits. Labour Members were knocking profits.

Mr. Mackinlay: Who was?

Mr. Shaw: I believe that the hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Mackinlay: I did not. I said that I was a defender of fair competition. The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that we have in the channel tunnel a modern transportation system whose safety standards are not applied comparably by its competitors, the ferry operators. That seems to be unfair competition. I want


competition in the interests of consumer choice, but there should be a level playing field in the interests of consumers and of shareholders in private enterprise companies.

Mr. Shaw: Ferry safety standards are at least equal to those of the channel tunnel. I shall not get into a depressing argument about whether more people are likely to be killed in a channel tunnel disaster than in a ferry disaster. Both facilities try desperately to make their services as safe as possible. I may knock the channel tunnel in terms of its quality of service and financing, which has been diabolical—there is no fair competition when £8 billion or more of debt is effectively written off and no interest is paid—but on the issue of safety I would not be prepared to attack the channel tunnel unless I had substantial evidence. In different ways, ferry and channel tunnel operators make every attempt to ensure that their facilities are as safe as possible.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I know that my hon. Friend will be drawing his speech to a close in a few moments, because a number of other hon. Members want to contribute to this short debate. My hon. Friend is entirely right on at least one point. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) mentioned in his closing remarks—which I wrote down, because I was concerned about them—that ferry operators were paying minimum attention to safety, to maximise their profits. That was the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. My hon. Friend was clearly right to draw attention to that nonsense.

Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I assure him that I am paying regard to the time, but the House is not as full as it has sometimes been for such debates.
I attended the safety exercise in Dover and saw the Stena ship evacuated. Labour Members did not.

Mr. Mackinlay: We were not invited. They kept it secret.

Mr. Shaw: I do not know why the hon. Member for Newport, West was not invited, but if he knew about it, he should have written to the Marine Safety Agency asking to be allowed to attend.

Mr. Mackinlay: They did not want members of the Transport Committee to witness the exercise.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Seated interventions are not acceptable to me.

Mr. Shaw: I had no difficulty getting to see the safety exercise, which I witnessed at first hand throughout. There is no doubt that 834 volunteers were successfully evacuated. I am sure that they would be flattered to hear themselves described by the hon. Member for Newport, West as fit and young. I would not want to denigrate the fitness or youthfulness of my constituents, but they were certainly not all in their 20s. The hon. Gentleman has received a wrong report of the exercise and would seem to have misled the House of Commons this morning.
The safety of the volunteers who took part was paramount, so speed was not given priority. Uppermost in everyone's mind was the wish that no one at Dover should

be injured or killed. I am amazed to find that the hon. Member for Newport, West thinks that the only worthwhile safety exercise would be one that involved pregnant women, inebriated passengers and people in wheelchairs and was conducted in mid-channel with a gale blowing. It sounds as if he will not be happy with a safety exercise until someone dies—a strange proposition.
The exercise took an hour. Only one person at a time was allowed down the chutes so as to ensure that no one crashed into anyone else. Of course, in a real incident at sea when people needed to be evacuated, more than one person at a time would have to go down the chutes and the whole exercise would have to be speeded up.
Moreover, only one side of the ship was used. It was moored in the harbour for the safety of the volunteers. At sea, six double chutes from both sides of the ship would be used. In Dover, only three double chutes from one side were used, but the safety exercise was valid nevertheless. Indeed, it showed that the half-hour timetable that everyone thinks desirable would be easily attainable in a real emergency at sea.
One problem was revealed during the safety exercise: although more than 20 life rafts were successfully launched, three of them failed. There were a number of spares, but a question mark remains over the three that failed. Everyone knows that, given a large number of life rafts, one or two may not inflate properly, but there is concern about the fact that these three failed, and I hope that serious consideration is being given to that.
Life rafts on board ship are regularly changed. It is therefore surprising that three relatively new rafts should fail. That certainly needs further investigation. In this regard, too, the safety exercise was a success because it pointed up one or two areas where checks could result in improvements. The bottom line is that the exercise worked. Labour Members call it a rigged exercise, which just shows how far from the truth they are prepared to stray. It is believed that this was the first ever safety exercise of its size not just in Europe but in the world.
Today we have heard another Labour conspiracy theory. The Opposition suggest that more than 800 volunteers, the Marine Safety Agency, the staff of the Dover port and harbour board, and the emergency services all combined in a conspiracy to make the exercise more successful than it really was. I do not subscribe to the idea that more than 1,000 people in Dover conspired in this way. The exercise demonstrated the safety of these procedures.
I am fed up with Labour's continual attacks on Dover's ferry industry. The leader and deputy leader of the Labour party have already said that they support public finance for the channel tunnel and would do down Dover's ferry industry. The Labour Member of the European Parliament for Kent East has attacked the safety exercise and Dover's ferry industry. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has today revealed his support for the railways and the channel tunnel.
Labour Members do not visit Dover to announce their support for the channel tunnel, but plenty of them come to mislead the people of Dover about what they are really up to. Railway union-sponsored Labour Members come and tell us how to run our port and ferry industry, but they omit to tell the people of Dover that they receive £5,500 a year from the rail unions, which also pay for 80 per cent. of their election expenses.
The hon. Member for Newport, West said that I was wrong about the Estonia; then he admitted that I was right to say that the bow doors on that ship are of a totally different design from those on Dover's ferries. The fact remains that Labour Members and Labour Members of the European Parliament just want to attack Dover's ferry industry. I am proud to be able to defend it.

Mr. Graham Allen: It is apposite to hold a debate on marine safety today, given the events of the weekend. It is important to record that a gross misjudgment by the Government over the weekend has turned an accident into a disaster. Had they taken heed of Lord Donaldson's recommendations, the terrible problem at Milford Haven would not have degenerated into the environmental and ecological tragedy that is unfolding.
Lord Donaldson suggested that a powerful tug be placed in the western approaches, but his recommendation has been ignored. Under-powered tugs have been attempting to pull the Sea Empress off the rocks—to no avail. Furthermore, the two powerful tugs deployed around the coast were not summoned by the relevant Ministers on Thursday night or Friday so that they could make headway to the scene of the accident and pull the Sea Empress off the rocks.
This tragedy will have appalling consequences, and the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who are responsible for both decisions, should reconsider their positions.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on initiating this debate, and on his assiduous work on ferry safety, not to mention his excellent work on the Transport Select Committee—

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Allen: I am delighted to give way to another distinguished member of that Committee.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend extend his congratulations to Conservative Members serving on the Transport Select Committee, who form a majority on it? They include the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who signed his name to the report that formed the basis of the criticisms levelled today by our hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). To his credit, the hon. Member for Southport went on television the morning the report was published to endorse its findings. We look forward to hearing from him later this morning, when doubtless he will reiterate his criticisms of the Government's stewardship of the ferry industry.

Mr. Allen: All members of the Select Committee are to be congratulated on their work. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) spoke so long, while saying virtually nothing and trivialising a serious issue, thereby forcing his hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) out of the debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene in my speech, I shall be pleased to accommodate him in a way that his hon. Friend was not prepared to do.
I should also like to record the thanks of all in this House to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) for his fine constituency work at the weekend. It was a remarkable and fortunate coincidence that the constituency Member of Parliament was not only interested in the area, but had some expertise. His herculean efforts over the past 48 hours have drawn to the attention of the press and public the way in which the Government have defaulted on their responsibility and created an appalling catastrophe for the marine environment in south Wales. [Interruption.]
The Minister for Transport in London mutters from a sedentary position that it is all the Government's fault. I do not say that the accident was the fault of the Government, but the lack of prompt and speedy Government action on Friday and the failure to listen to the recommendations of Lord Donaldson over the past two years is their fault. They are liable in those circumstances. I hope that the people of south Wales will ask why the Government did not supply the correct equipment to tackle the problem over the weekend. The result of their inaction on Donaldson and their failure to supply appropriate powered tugs to the scene caused a tragedy when only an accident had occurred.
I am concerned that efforts to improve ferry safety, both in the United Kingdom and internationally, are stalling. I hope that the Minister can give us some good news this morning. We must ensure that domestic and international policy picks up speed so that the problems that have been outlined so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West are tackled with expedition.
One problem is the decline in the merchant fleet. The number of third country-flagged ferries is growing, and those ferries—as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West rightly pointed out—are often crewed by non-British crews and commanded by non-British officers. They are crewed by people from low-cost labour countries. The decline in our merchant fleet has an immediate knock-on consequence for safety standards.
I welcome another member of the Select Committee on Transport to the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). As he knows, all the figures show that British-flagged ships are safer than ships flagged out to other countries. By not using United Kingdom officers and United Kingdom crews, we are drying up the supply of expertise for the Marine Safety Agency, for future training of British crews and for the insurance and shipping industries. We are cutting off the life-blood of our future merchant fleet by failing to ensure adequate numbers of United Kingdom officers and United Kingdom seafarers.
The Opposition have repeatedly called for proper regulation to address the concerns highlighted by the Herald of Free Enterprise and Estonia disasters. We fully support the introduction of new safety measures, but further action is now needed. Too many opportunities have been missed. Pressure is increasing on ferries and, therefore, on ferry safety. Many operators have slimmed down their operations to achieve leaner crewing levels, involving redundancies, and have made radical changes in work practices—not least, faster turn-round times. All those factors put added pressure on crews and officers on ferries plying the channel and elsewhere.
Many of those issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West rightly said, were addressed by the report of the all-party Select Committee on Transport.


It is a failing of this place that the House has not had time, that the Government have not made time and that Parliament has not insisted on time to debate fully that important report. That failing goes far wider, as the Select Committees are dislocated from the Floor of the Chamber so that key issues, which hon. Members put hours of valuable time into discussing, are never debated openly on the Floor of the House. We will need to address that when there is a change of Government.
The Government have failed to respond adequately to the Select Committee's report on cross-channel safety. Instead of making a commitment to firm safety proposals for cross-channel ferries, the Government have diluted the Select Committee's recommendations so that they are less effective.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allen: I will give way to the hon. Member because he served on the Select Committee.

Mr. Banks: I shall be as brief as I can.
I recognise that the Select Committee unanimously agreed the recommendations in our report, but too much time has been spent on Donaldson and not enough on the issues that this debate was meant to cover. I recognise that the Leader of the Opposition got rid of all the Opposition Front-Bench transport team and replaced them with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I am delighted that he is taking a serious interest, but I hope that he will recognise that, after the Select Committee report was published and we expressed our concerns publicly and sensibly, the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London have led the way in the International Maritime Organisation discussions. The Government have led the way for the world in trying to toughen safety standards. As we have a new Opposition team—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but interventions should be short and we are especially short of time this morning.

Mr. Allen: I will not join the hon. Gentleman in criticising the inexperience of the Secretary of State for Transport, who is obviously attempting to learn the job, as I am in my new position.
We have supported the proposal for the hotel-style star rating. A one-to-five rating would give companies a commercial incentive to tighten safety standards as quickly as possible, but the Government have refused to implement such a system, using the excuse that it did not include factors such as crew competency. The Government are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water by asking for everything to be tied up before starting such a scheme. They should augment those proposals if they believe them to be inadequate, rather than rejecting them outright.
Similarly, the Government have weakened the recommendation that passenger information should be included in publicity material, and they have fobbed the public off, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West said, with a hotline for inquiries. Passengers should have a right to know and they should be clear about which

safety regulations the ship that they are boarding has met. They should not have to contend with another Government hotline.
In order to allow the Minister some time, I will not go into my views about the farce that occurred at Dover. The very fact that the hon. Member for Dover has defended it so ardently makes my case.
Timing is a crucial issue. The Government should issue a clear timetable for implementing any new measures: "As soon as possible" just is not good enough. We must ensure that we have international and European co-operation on ferry safety standards, and not just lip service to it. In all those areas, enforcement is just as important as getting the rules and regulations right. If the deliberate decline in Marine Safety Agency personnel continues, the regulations, whatever they are, will be enforced less effectively. At the moment, the MSA is losing people and vacancies are not being filled. The MSA polices the regulations and inspects ships to make sure that they are adequate and safe.
I hoped that the IMO conference on ferry safety last November would make progress, but it failed to make the agreements for which we had hoped. The north-west European agreement outside IMO is welcome because it commits European countries to apply the safety of life at sea 1990 standards—SOLAS 90—to ferries, but in practice that is not making ferries safer because implementation is not required until 2007. We were let down again in January when further European talks to agree legislation on ferry safety standards came to nothing.
Ferry safety will return to the agenda again on 29 February, when European Governments meet in Stockholm to try to agree finally on standards. The Danish Government have already proposed a compromise solution for a new method of calculating the amount of water that should be allowed on car decks without the vessel capsizing. I support the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West for the Government's response to that proposal and their expectations for the next round of talks.
We must have improved ferry safety standards, at the very least within the United Kingdom, as soon as possible, and as part of a well-thought-out long-term strategy. The need for a firm commitment is urgent. I hope that the Government will reconfirm today their commitment, announced on 20 November 1995, to act unilaterally to improve safety standards on ro-ro ferries' operations from UK ports if the next round of talks at the end of February fails.
Ferry safety concerns every hon. Member, not only those with coastal constituencies and those who worked so assiduously as members of the all-party Select Committee on Transport. The relevance of ferry safety was emphasised by the terrible scenes that we witnessed at the weekend—scenes that, with prompt action in taking up the Donaldson recommendations and on Friday in bringing the appropriate equipment to bear, could have been prevented. Such action could have prevented some of the scenes that, sadly, we shall witness over the coming weeks and months. Let that be another lesson.
The Braer disaster was a lesson that was not learnt by the Government. Let the Sea Empress lesson be learnt by the Government, not only in respect of oil pollution and


tanker safety but in terms of ferry safety. The lessons have been given and the work has been done; we need a Government who will listen.
10.50 am

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): One of the great advantages of opposition is the opportunity to criticise without the slightest sense of responsibility. It has often been asserted that the less knowledge of a subject an Opposition Member has, the better he is able to set out an array of irrelevancies tangled together to form some basis of an argument. That is what we heard from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). His speech could be summarised by the glorious phrase, "As soon as possible just is not soon enough." It is the sort of phrase of which the Opposition are extraordinarily fond, and I let it lie on the record in all its ludicrousness for others to judge.
I have some experience of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on safety matters. He is the sort of man who would terrify the average adult at the prospect of crossing a road, such is his fixation with turning any incident into a crisis, any crisis into a drama and any drama into a political event.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for well in excess of 40 minutes. He and his hon. Friends have left me precisely eight minutes in which to respond to their remarks. In the circumstances, I shall not be give way to the hon. Gentleman or to any other hon. Member.
The hon. Member for Newport, West does the House no service. He is intelligent yet he frequently, on this and other issues, turns his back on logic and on the facts when they clash with the convenient stance that he would like to take, which is to be utterly cynical about passengers who intend to travel on ferries that operate out of Dover, which is represented, of course, by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), and from other ports. He has not the slightest regard for the fact that 50 million passengers travelled on ferries last year alone. He is prepared to scare them unreasonably when he has no evidence on which to base his assertions. He is prepared to distort the conclusions of the Select Committee on Transport in a way that I consider to be unacceptable.
There was an argument between the hon. Member for Newport, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover about the Estonia. It is clear that it is not my hon. Friend who is incorrect in saying that the design of the Estonia was quite different from that of other vessels. It is the hon. Gentleman who is wrong to suggest that the design of the Estonia was immaterial. The reality is that the Estonia's bow doors consisted of a complex mechanism of inner and outer doors, which had a structural interaction. In other words, damage to the bow door interacted with the inner door, hence opening both doors after the failure of the outer bow door. I can confirm that no British ferry is designed with that interaction. Indeed, the Marine Safety Agency would not permit such a design to be implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover speaks straightforwardly for his constituency, as every hon. Member should, and was quite right to say what he did about the Estonia.
The reality is that the United Kingdom Government take the issue of passenger ferry safety extremely seriously. It was the Government who led the campaign within the International Maritime Organisation for higher damage survivability standards to be applied to all ro-ro ferries. It was the Government who led the campaign to reach the SOLAS 90 standard, even though, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who is a member of the Select Committee on Transport, will understand, we have long accepted that SOLAS 90 was not of itself sufficient and that we needed to go further.
In November 1995, the IMO convened a diplomatic conference to consider amendments to the safety of life at sea convention. In some respects, that conference was a great success. A wide range of measures was adopted, including improvements to life-saving equipment and improved evacuation arrangements. Belatedly, the conference endorsed the view that SOLAS 90 should be applied to all ro-ro ferries, including those built before 1990, but did not agree to a further enhancement of the standard whereby ro-ro ferries should meet the 1990 standard and should be able to cope with a significant influx of water on the car deck without capsizing.
We were disappointed that the conference was unable to agree to a global application of the higher survivability standard, but we achieved a significant concession. The conference adopted a resolution allowing those countries that wished to do so to enter into regional agreements to apply the higher survivability standard to ro-ro ferries operating between their ports. The Government are involved in negotiations with our European neighbours and other interested Administrations to develop such an agreement, which would apply to all ferries operating to and from our ports.
Our position in the negotiations has been that the agreement should apply the highest practicable standard in the best achievable time scale. I hope that we shall be able to announce the conclusion of a satisfactory agreement shortly. That would be a major achievement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport did the House a service in confirming that throughout the process it has been the United Kingdom Government who have led the drive for higher safety standards. It should be said that in many other areas the United Kingdom takes its safety responsibilities seriously.
In the extraordinarily inadequate time that is available to me, I shall say a few words about the survivability exercise. The hon. Member for Newport, West appears to criticise the exercise because not enough volunteers were drunk, pregnant or lost. He complains that the exercise was not carried out in a force 9 gale in the middle of the Baltic sea. In other words, he complains that the exercise was not intended to replicate all the circumstances—the worst circumstances—in which an incident might take place. That is a ludicrous criticism of the operation.
The operation was intended to test and demonstrate important safety procedures. In all, 842 people were safely evacuated from the ship. There is, of course, a huge difference between that sort of exercise and what would happen in reality. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover was entirely right to make the fundamental point that the safety of volunteers was paramount, which quite necessarily placed some constraints on the exercise that would not apply if, unfortunately, the exercise had to be carried out for real. As ever, the hon. Member for


Newport, West chose to try to make political capital in a most ludicrous and distorted way out of an extraordinarily valuable exercise.
Time prevents me from narrating in detail the extent to which the Government have continued responsibly to fulfil their role of pressing the issue of ferry safety within the international community. I am content, as I believe all objective hon. Members will be, that the Government have at all times acted with the interests of ferry safety as their paramount concern.

Mr. Matthew Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although, for understandable reasons, I was not able to catch your eye earlier, this is a genuine point of order.
The House knows the light touch that you use in dealing with our proceedings and that there are times when it is necessary to stick closely to the motion on the Order Paper. May I draw your attention to the fact—although I imply absolutely no criticism of you whatsoever; if there were any criticism it would be of Opposition Members—that earlier we debated ferry safety, when we heard far too much from Opposition Members on matters that relate to the Donaldson report and Pembroke but which have nothing to do with the subject of the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)?

Madam Deputy Speaker: This is basically an Adjournment debate. Although topics are suggested, the Chair is not so strict in such debates.

Review of Local Government

Mr. Bob Dunn: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate and I should say at the outset that I have deliberately used the word "review" in the sense given in the Oxford English dictionary, which states that a review is
A general survey or reconsideration of some subject or thing.
Therefore, for me, it is a rural and urban ride—a general survey of local government in terms of the way in which it is run, and the way in which it might be run, managed and financed in the future.
In relation to that objective, my thoughts have been sharpened and focused by early-day motion 395, entitled the "John Smith memorial lecture", which was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). Among other things, that motion refers to
a renewal of United Kingdom democracy to include strengthened local Government, democratised regional government, a Welsh assembly and a Scottish Parliament".
That motion is very important in the context of a debate about the way in which local government works and might work because it clearly states a policy commitment, as given by the Leader of the Opposition on 7 February in that important lecture.
I must also say at the outset that I am delighted to see so many of my colleagues from Kent—my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—and also a colleague who is not from Kent, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). I am sure that they will play their part in this debate.
Early-day motion 395 is very significant because it talks about strengthening local government. But in what way is it to be strengthened? Are all the powers, duties and changes that we have introduced liable to be overturned by a Labour Government, allowing local government to run riot and to damage the interests of vulnerable people, as the Labour party has done in local government? If so, heaven help the Labour party, which has caused such damage to the people in the name of the people.
According to the early-day motion, Conservative Members are not alone in the wish to evaluate local government, but clear blue water divides us from the Labour party on this issue, as on so many others. I shall pursue that point further later in the debate. I suspect that what Conservative Members desire for local government is profoundly different from what Labour Members ultimately wish for it. We want to reduce the burden of government, while they seek to impose extra burdens on the local taxpayer. However, I anticipate my later remarks on that aspect, so perhaps hon. Members will have the patience to wait for a short while.
Local government, as the House will agree, is about local services being delivered locally by persons or agencies situated in the communities in which the policies are to take effect. The services are, of course, to be administered according to national policies laid down by Parliament and local policies and expenditure plans approved by locally elected councillors. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that rather rough and not


necessarily perfect interpretation. Ultimately, local councillors are accountable, first, to the law of the land, and secondly—and equally importantly—to the people who elected them. That is the textbook version of local government, although the true picture is slightly different, as the House will know.
I return to the urban ride with which I began my speech. I suggest that we start just across the water with the example—as a benchmark for the future—of the London borough of Lambeth. I chose that local authority entirely at random last night when I wrote this speech because it is just across the Thames from here and the nearest point from which to start my short but vivid journey.
Lambeth has a very poor record in a number of areas of service delivery. It is one of the 10 London authorities with the highest number of empty accommodation units, second only to the London borough of Hackney. Needless to say, the other nine local authorities are Labour controlled, while Lambeth, mercifully, has no overall party control—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) would be quiet and listen: she might learn something, although she has not learnt much so far.
Lambeth has one of the worst records on the collection of council rents. It came third out of the 10 London boroughs with the worst records on collecting council rents, with £22.4 million-worth of rents in arrears. Its record was beaten only by Hackney, with arrears of £36.8 million, and Haringey with £35.4 million.
In relation to council tax, Lambeth entered a class of its own. It was first—a dubious record, indeed—out of the 10 London boroughs with the worst records on collecting council tax. In 1993–94, Lambeth managed to collect only 48.4 per cent.—less than half—of the council tax levied. The uncollected tax, which remains somewhere out in the London borough of Lambeth, amounted to £29.5 million. If hon. Members find that figure shocking, they will be even more shocked—indeed, they will be astonished—when I tell them that at 31 March 1994 a total of £84.8 million was owed in community charge, and that £12.9 million in domestic rates was not collected.
Lambeth, is of course, a traditional target for Conservative Members, and I make no apology for that. It is traditional in the House to point out areas such as Lambeth and say, "This is an example of the Labour party in government"—and it has been in government in Lambeth for many years.
I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister. I tabled a question to him recently in which I asked:
which are the 20 local authorities with the highest debt levels in England; and in each case what is (a) the total amount of debt and (b) the debt per head of population."—[Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 6.]
The list of 20 local authorities was produced and, lo and behold, Lambeth was ranked third—second only to Birmingham and Manchester.
Any review of local government must take account of the following facts. At 31 March 1995, Lambeth's total debt was £905 million, which equates to £3,472 per head of population. The fourth authority after Lambeth was, of course, the London borough of Islington, where the Leader of the Opposition lives. It has a total debt of £880 million, which equates to a debt of more than £5,000

per head. That list is quite significant in any review of local government and the services that are supplied and administered.
When I studied the answer from my hon. Friend the Minister, I noticed to my great surprise that 18th in the list of 20 was my own county of Kent, which is controlled by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, and has been since the previous county council elections in 1993. Kent county council has a total debt of £429 million, which amounts to £278 per head of population. Those on Kent county council may say that that debt is not great at £278 per head—a little baby debt.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman's baby grows up, I should point out that one of the essential features of an Adjournment debate is that the matter considered should be the responsibility of the Government. Given the way in which he is developing his speech, I am not too sure where that connection is.

Mr. Dunn: I can help you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the meaning of my remarks is not yet clear, because in answer to an earlier point of order, you said that an Adjournment debate is a general debate. I am leading to the precise point that will help the House out of difficulty.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the two points of order were separate. It is a fundamental part of an Adjournment debate that, whatever the topic under consideration, it should be a responsibility of the Government.

Mr. Dunn: In the sense that Government enact, perhaps I can go on to make it clear where I stand. I shall conclude the first part of my argument by reminding hon. Members of the list that the Minister supplied on 9 January, which is there for them to see, and which revealed that Kent county council has now joined the list of the worst run authorities in England.
If the excesses of Labour in local government were insufficient to weaken the stout-hearted, there are certain Opposition Members now demonstrably arguing the need to impose another tier of government upon us. It is still local, because it is self-evidently not national: they advocate regional government. The best model that we have had of that in the south-east, on which I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to comment later, is the former Greater London council, in whose abolition I played a part as a Minister. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is present. He may want to talk about the former GLC as he is the self-appointed sole apologist and defender of it.
It is worth placing it on record that in the five years to 1985–86 the GLC increased its net terms expenditure by 170 per cent. while prices rose by just 29 per cent. Between 1981–82 and 1983–84 alone, the GLC's precept rose by 118 per cent. while the retail prices index rose by just 14 per cent. By 1985–86, the GLC was responsible for just 11 per cent. of local services in London but had 20,000 employees, 92 councillors and a budget of just under £1 billion, not including expenditure by the Inner London education authority. Indeed, in 1985–86 the GLC police committee had a budget of £2.9 million, which was used to grant aid to 49 anti-police organisations in London.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Bearing on the matter of local and national government, is it not also true that the GLC set out quite deliberately to attack national Government on every possible occasion, even defiling its own listed building with propaganda?

Mr. Dunn: It did indeed do that, and my hon. Friend may wish to develop that comment later.
The important thing to stress in this debate is the need to leave things as they are. I am not just a Conservative with a big "C" but one with a small "c" as well. We have enacted various changes to local government, but I would argue against any further changes to its structure. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Dunn: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. In many ways he is almost a friend, because I have affection for him, as do all my hon. Friends, for the good that he does for the Conservative party.
In its day, ILEA was the highest-spending education authority in terms of expenditure per pupil; yet it managed to produce the worst results in the country. That is a significant fact to bear in mind when one talks about the dispersal, disposition and provision of services, and the power to administer them.

Mr. Banks: I hope to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to answer some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I should like to pick up on something that he has just said. He said that he is a conservative in the global sense of the word and that he wants to leave local government structures as they are now. Yet all the recent changes to local government have been made by Conservative Governments. A Conservative Government set up the London county council; then they set up the Greater London council and subsequently abolished it. They made changes in 1972 and more recently. It is always Conservative Governments who throw the pieces up in the air to see where they settle.

Mr. Dunn: That is why I am drawing on our experience to offer a warning for the future. It is true that the Conservatives set up the LCC and then abolished it, as well as ILEA, the GLC and the metropolitan counties. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: there is no blue water between us on that. That is why I want to use this debate to issue a warning about the future.
Local government is about the dispersal and provision of services to local people. The point that I am trying to make is that one needs to ensure that those services are local, and that they are delivered efficiently and cost-effectively by local people to local people.
As a result of the intervention from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, I am drawn by natural development to refer to the book by Will Hutton, "The State We're In", which I read just this weekend. I was astonished to discover how much of its content has become official Opposition policy. Until now, I was happy to credit the Leader of the Opposition with a certain amount of intellectual independence and originality of thought, but I subsequently found that it was all there in that book. It is Will Hutton who should be leader of the Labour party because all its ideas have been pinched from

that essentially flawed book. Reading on, right at the end of the book I found a chapter on stakeholder capitalism. Have we not heard of that somewhere before?

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: That has a lot to do with the debate.

Mr. Dunn: Yes, it has, because on page 324 of that book Will Hutton writes:
Every English region outside the home counties, together with Scotland and Wales, wants more power to govern its own affairs.
I do not believe that that is the case. I have found no evidence among Back Benchers to support it, and I do not think that the Government would want to support that view. It is important to note that Will Hutton has made that argument. Why does the Labour party want to impose a further tier of local government? It is not alone, because the Liberal Democrats, too, have a policy on regional government. Why do they wish to impose a further tier of local government upon us?
As I said in the early-day motion that I tabled last week, at present we have parish councils, borough councils, county councils, the national Westminster Parliament and the European Union. Those five levels of government bear down upon the individual local and national taxpayer. If a further tier of local regional government were imposed, six levels of government would bear down on the individual. Once set up, a regional assembly, authority or council will want something to do. If it has something to do, where will the powers come from? Will they be devolved downwards from national Government or upwards from the county council, the district or the parish? Who gains and who loses? We want an answer from the Labour party.
More importantly, if a regional assembly is to have something to do, it will want money in order to do it. Will it simply levy a precept, as I mentioned earlier in the context of the GLC, which means that the precepting authority has no responsibility whatever for the collection of money and is not accountable to the people who pay the precept locally? If the authority was indirectly appointed, it could precept the local council, which could mean that the regional authority would have no accountability locally. If the authority were directly elected, it could be situated so far away as to render it meaningless in terms of access.
Wanting to do something and having the money to do so is a great leap forward in the construction and imposition of a further tier of local government, and Opposition Members must be warned about that. It is a notion that their leader has not addressed: there is a gap in the policy announcements. The Opposition are told by their spin doctors that it is a good thing. The truth is that there would be six tiers of government. What will they do? How will it all be paid for? How will they be accountable? Will they have tax-raising powers?
There has been much debate recently about devolution, which I shall not go into now in detail. I should make it absolutely clear that I mention the subject only en route. Although the prospect of devolution may seem completely non-threatening to us in the south of England, the truth is somewhat different. It is a form of local government. It is an attempt to create another tier of bureaucracy regionally, and it has been deployed by the Labour party in response to the political pressure that it is encountering north of the


border from the Scottish nationalists. But the only logical outcome for Scottish devolution is the creation of regional authorities throughout the United Kingdom. If Scotland were given its own tax-raising authority, Wales and England would surely follow, creating yet another tier of local government.
If we look at the current Labour proposal, which I hope that the House will condemn, we can see the awful consequences. Despite being funded by a block grant from Westminster, a Scottish Parliament would have the power to raise 3p in the pound. An extra 3p on income tax would cost the average Scottish family £6 per week. People with less to spend would have less to save and to invest. It follows from that that the answer to the West Lothian question is regional Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, and regional assemblies for England. That would solve the West Lothian question and redress the inevitable discrepancy in tax between Scotland and England, but it would be a further tier of government, another set of people spending other people's money, and higher taxes would be the result. While Scotland would labour under a tartan tax, England would suffer the red rose tax. Many of my constituents would face six tiers of government—I shall continue to say that until the message gets home—from parish, borough, county, region, Parliament and the European Assembly—all wanting to levy tax and initiate legislation.
I come to the end of my short speech, and I am grateful for the patience of the House. This is the most serious constitutional issue that we face, next to republicanism and the future of the monarchy. It affects all of our constituents in England, and it must be made abundantly clear that we oppose it. We want to move power back to local level, not to take it away. We want to give people some say in how their communities develop, and regional government is not the way forward.

Mr. Tony Banks: I welcome the debate that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) initiated, but from his tone it is quite clear that we are miles away from being able to agree on a more consensual basis the structure and functions of local government, and I wish that we could achieve that, because I find the idea that we should continue to have these old battles acutely depressing.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would start his journey in Lambeth, just walking over the bridge, across the Thames. It was a pity that he walked by county hall and made no mention of the sad state that it is currently in. The Japanese flag is flying above it, the wonderful idea of a luxury hotel has come to nothing, the structure is being stripped out above the listed second floor—the principal floor, as far as I am aware—and an aquarium is being constructed in the basement, for which they still do not have consent. That seems a crazy way to administer one of the great buildings of London. It has been allowed to decline, and the fault for that lies entirely with the Government.
It is interesting to note that, in the latest round of local government reorganisation, the Secretary of State said that the electorate would have a considerable say in the preferred structures for their areas. One thing that he ruled

out at the beginning, however, is that whatever Londoners say that they want in terms of citywide local government, they will be ignored. So much for the listening Government who continually talk about freedom of choice, and who set up league tables for just about everything that is capable of movement, except a league table based on their own popularity or honour.
The Secretary of State gave Londoners the political equivalent of Henry Ford's famous dictum, "You can have whatever colour car you want, provided it's black," although I notice from today's newspapers that that has been changed somewhat. I saw an advertisement for Ford cars in which all the black people have become white. Ford's new mission statement now appears to be, "You can have any colour worker you want at Ford, provided he is white."
The debate is appropriate, given that 31 March this year will mark the 10th anniversary of the abolition of the GLC. I still stand firmly by the conviction that its abolition was carried out in total defiance of the wishes of the majority of Londoners. Indeed, opinion polls have been remarkably consistent on that fact, right the way through the abolition battle until today. About two thirds of Londoners opposed the abolition of the GLC and about two thirds still express a wish for some form of strategic citywide structure. Abolition was an act of political malice, carried out by probably the most vindictive, dogmatic, bigoted, authoritarian Prime Minister that this country has had to suffer since the days of the Duke of Wellington—from the iron duke to the iron maiden, linked together through 150 years only by their own personal arrogance.
It is not my intention to refight the old battles, because I cheer myself up with the old saying, "Don't get angry, get even."

Mr. Rowe: I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not going to fight old battles. Does that mean that, if he were in a position to do so, he would not reintroduce the GLC or anything like it?

Mr. Banks: Far from it. I said, "Don't get angry, get even." That is another matter altogether. I do not intend to get involved in sterile arguments, as we have won the arguments, and I know that from public opinion polls, business leaders, community leaders and from politicians who privately speak the truth outside the Chamber when they talk about the organisation of London. I just do not want to get involved in sterile arguments, as I know that we have won them, and we are getting ready for action. I am glad that Margaret Thatcher is out of the House, and I am quite content that she should spend her declining years lecturing bemused Japanese business men on her own version of flat-earth economics. All I know is that, as the last chairman of the GLC, I am still here and I look forward to the day when the Labour party in government restores London's strategic authority. That is a firm commitment.
The hon. Member for Dartford was right to mention the excellent speech given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—the John Smith memorial lecture on 7 February. I quote for greater accuracy and for the record precisely what my right hon. Friend said about a strategic authority for London:
It is hard to defend the way London is presently run. This is a great city and a huge asset to our country. It is a fantastic business and cultural centre and a great place to live and work. But it is


crucially handicapped in dealing with its problems because it has no elected voice of its own. Unemployment, housing, clogged transport and pollution are just some of the challenges that Londoners face. London has been left to drift, and its quality of life has suffered.
And I am not alone. A large majority of Londoners want their own city-wide authority. Even Geoffrey Howe admitted recently that abolishing the GLC was a mistake. I hope that Lord Howe and others who recognise they were wrong in the past will support our plan to establish an elected authority, able to speak up for London and work together with business and the people to give the city the future it deserves.
Those were the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who will soon be Prime Minister of this country.

Mr. Dunn: I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman's flow of oratory—

Mr. Banks: I had finished.

Mr. Dunn: I am glad to hear it.
The hon. Gentleman argues strongly for a strategic authority for London. There is nothing wrong with that; it is entirely consistent with the views that he has expressed in the past. But where will the authority's boundaries be? That has huge implications for Dartford. If the M25 becomes a boundary, half my constituency will be run by London while the rest will be administered from as far away as Reading or Guildford. Is that a sensible arrangement for the people of Dartford?

Mr. Banks: I will deal with that a little later. The hon. Gentleman has identified real problems, however, and I am sure that he will make a constructive contribution to the consultation paper that will be issued shortly by my hon. Friend the Minister for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made another interesting suggestion. There need not be a strategic authority in quite those terms; there could be another kind of voice for London. The question of its geographical boundaries exercised the House in 1964 when the London county council was abolished, and we shall doubtless return to such arguments when Labour is in government.
One of the upsetting features of our debate about the GLC is the way in which Tory Members of Parliament keep going on about how unnecessary the GLC was, and how no one misses it. When I asked the Minister to
list those organisations which have acknowledged that the Government's decision to abolish the Greater London Council was right",
he replied:
The fact that hardly anyone outside the Labour party is arguing for a return of the GLC seems amply to justify the Government's decision to abolish it."—[Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 9.]
That was probably written by a civil servant with the mental capacity of a split lentil, but the Minister signed it. Perhaps he even wrote it. He cannot genuinely believe it, however. He need only talk to the CBI, the chambers of commerce, the police or anyone else in London. I defy him to come back and say, with his hand on his heart—assuming that he can find it—that no one is other than content with the current position. That is nonsense; it is

balderdash; it is palpably untrue. The Minister knows that—or, if he does not, he is deceiving himself to a breathtaking degree. Those who argue that the GLC had no functions and no purpose merely reveal a profound ignorance of London, exceeded only by their ideological inflexibility.
The hon. Member for Dartford said, "Let us leave things as they are." That is a typical Tory sentiment: smash it all up, kick it all around and then say, "Now we must leave it as it is. That is Conservatism—that is tradition." It has always been Conservative Governments who have kicked local government around, broken it up and then complained that it did not work afterwards. It was a Conservative Government who set up the London county council in 1892, and a Conservative Government who got rid of it in 1964 and created the GLC. Because they feared that they would not be able to gain political control of the LCC, they set up a new system. Unfortunately, it did not work: Labour gained control of the new strategic authority. And so it goes on.
Until the abolition of the GLC, strategic government in London had lasted for nearly 100 years. It was six years short of its centenary. How can Conservative Members argue that, having been considered necessary for nearly 100 years, strategic government was suddenly deemed unnecessary? That defies belief, and shows an utter lack of understanding of the way in which London is governed. As I have said, the abolition of the GLC had nothing to do with the needs or wishes of Londoners; it was all down to Margaret Thatcher's personal obsession. As I told the Minister, no one outside the Government really believes that London is better off without a strategic authority.
Lord Howe was brave and big enough to express his view. He was Deputy Prime Minister when the commitment was made to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan councils. When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) realised that the 1983 Tory manifesto mentioned the abolition of the GLC, he said that he was shocked, and that it had been included by Margaret Thatcher personally: the manifesto had been drafted by her own fair hand. London's government cannot be organised on the basis of the petty obsessions of individuals—even eminent individuals such as Prime Ministers.
Conservative Members often talk of the grants that the GLC gave to the English Collective of Prostitutes. One would think that that was all that it had ever done. Let me list some of the functions that it inherited from the LCC. It was responsible for London Transport, traffic lights, waste disposal, the fire service, civil defence, the south bank arts complex, London's bridges and tunnels, the Thames barrier, the green belt, historic houses, the history of London, scientific services, regional parks and open spaces such as Hampstead heath, Crystal palace and Victoria and Battersea parks, London's strategic planning, museums and art galleries and the national sports centre. The LCC and the GLC built new towns, many of which are represented by hon. Members outside London. They constructed seaside homes. People were able to move around London; we are now experiencing the problems associated with a lack of mobility.
What has replaced that single authority? The Government said that the new system would work efficiently, because local authorities would inherit the GLC's powers. A few have, but the GLC's former responsibilities have largely been taken over by


Government offices such as the Departments of Transport and of the Environment and the Home Office. We have a Minister responsible for London, ha ha; we have a Cabinet sub-committee; we have indirectly elected boards such as the fire, civil defence and waste disposal authorities; we have quangos such as the Arts Council, the Port of London Authority and English Heritage; we have private sector initiatives such as London First and London Pride. Conservative Members try to suggest that London is better run now, but that is nonsense, and Londoners know that it is. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), whose constituency is way up north somewhere, is nodding; that makes my point all the more poignant.
Labour is committed to the establishment of a new voice for London. It might be a strategic authority. We should have to discuss its role and functions: it must have well-defined purposes and powers. It will not be a recreation of the GLC, but it may be something that I personally favour. Let me return to that superb, excellent, wonderful speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—[Laughter. ] I must give credit where credit is due. Anyone who thinks that that constitutes an application for a job is not altogether wrong. Yes, I want to stand at that Dispatch Box on the Government side of the House, helping to bring back a strategic authority for London. Then I will really lay the ghost of Margaret Thatcher. I want to be there for the first Government reception, to which I shall invite no Conservative Members unless they are very kind and polite.
Let me return to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said about the question of a mayor for London. He said:
Though this is controversial, not least among local government itself, and is not yet party policy, I also favour directly elected mayors, at least for our capital city and other large cities. Thanks in large measure to government destruction of local democracy there has been a dangerous loss of civic pride in many areas and this is one way that we might address that.
That is an interesting proposal. I proposed a directly elected mayor for London in the 1980s. If Conservative Members want to learn something about the structure of London government and the way in which it may go forward, they should read my speech when I introduced a ten-minute Bill on 2 May 1990. There was not then much enthusiasm in the Labour party for my proposal. It is nice to know that the leader of my party is saying that the idea has to be considered and will be part of the consultation paper that the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, will issue soon.
It is also nice to know that the Deputy Prime Minister favours the idea, as does the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). The idea is growing. It is nice that one can propose an idea well over a decade ago for one's party leader, the Deputy Prime Minister and the former National Heritage Secretary to follow up years later. On days like this, I feel that I am earning my pittance in this place.
In conclusion, we have won all the arguments over the government of London. Ministers have more or less given up. I have done many television interviews with Ministers where they have virtually packed up because they realise

that the weight of evidence is so strongly against them. Public opinion is against them. Informed, impartial and objective opinion is against them. The only people who are still battened down and arguing that we do not need a strategic authority are the inheritors of the wretched legacy of Margaret Thatcher. They cannot admit what many of them know in their hearts because of the great loss of political face involved.
I favour an elected mayor for London, which would call into question the role of the Lord Mayor of the City of London. I do not see how we can have an elected mayor for London and maintain a Lord Mayor of the City of London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I have to put that on record. I want something that Mr. Gladstone wanted. It would be nice if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition could complete the work that the great Gladstone attempted in 1874 of extending the City outwards. The new elected Lord Mayor of London could live in the Mansion House. Perhaps the new executive authority could meet in the Guildhall—by that time, county hall will have been turned into an aquarium for Japanese visitors so that they can see what they are going to have for their fish course.
We could still have the Lord Mayor's procession and make sure that that historic position becomes one with the new elected Lord Mayor of London—a seamless robe stretching back into history. That would be a wonderful solution to the problem of a new voice for London. If that happens, I hope that my humble application for such a position will be duly considered.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for calling for a debate on the review of local government. That phrase strikes a dreadful chord with his constituents in Dartford and mine in Gravesham. Twice now, the Local Government Commission has originally proposed a joint unitary authority for our two boroughs on well-argued grounds and twice it has backed off under an expensive barrage orchestrated by Kent county council. The grand old Duke of York could not have done it better. Twice it has marched us up to the top of the hill and twice it has marched us down again.
It is logical for north-west Kent to have a unitary council. North-west Kent is in transition from its honourable past in heavy industry to its exciting future in modern light industry and commerce. It is distinct from rural Kent. Our Conservative Government are interested in the welfare of its residents and in this proposal. They have done much to assist us. They have declared the Thames gateway. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is aptly entitled the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, frequently visits our area, bringing his enthusiasm and drive to work in support of the redevelopment of north-west Kent.
We once had excellent co-operation between the two borough councils of Gravesham and Dartford, but that was when they were ably led by Conservative leaders—Peter Dyke at Gravesham and Kenneth Leadbeater at Dartford. They worked together for the good of our area. That co-operation was exemplified by Kent Thames-Side, where local councils worked well with local landholders, such as Blue Circle Properties, and the Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust, to decide how our area could best be developed.
The unity and co-operation in north-west Kent was best exemplified by the Kent Thames-Side Groundwork Trust, which combined local interests and volunteers who were financed by local councils and by national agencies, such as English Partnerships and the Government's imaginative single regeneration budget scheme. It produced many valuable environmental and regeneration projects, such as Waterton park, in Denton in Gravesend and the imaginative projects in Northfleet at The Hive and St. Botolph's. Throughout that period, the trust had an outstanding leader and chairman in local county councillor Frank Gibson. Not only have the Government supported us in all that; they decided that the rail link intermediate international station will be at Ebbsfleet and have given generous SRB awards to projects in north-west Kent.
The tragedy is that both Gravesham and Dartford councils are now under Labour control. Kent county council is also in Labour hands, thanks to the collaboration of the Liberal Democrats. The result for local government in north-west Kent has been squabbles, lack of vision and downgrading of co-operation between the two boroughs—exemplified by the sidelining of the Groundwork Trust's work. Why should that be?
The lack of co-operation—the shambles—under the three Labour councils has come about because my constituents are the victims of a plot by the Labour party to use them as mere pawns in a far wider national game. Originally, a unitary authority for north-west Kent had the passive support of the Labour opposition on both local district councils. In its 1993 manifesto for the Kent county council elections, Labour expressed its intention to abolish Kent county council. The manifesto states:
KCC under the Tories has seemed remote and uncaring. Sharing responsibilities between county and district councils can confuse residents. Labour believes that ideally one local authority should be democratically accountable for local services in its area. We say Kent is too large a county to function effectively as a unitary authority.
The secret additional reason why the Labour party wanted to abolish Kent county council was to clear the decks for a new layer of regional government, which has long been a Labour obsession. Imposing regional government on England was the only way that the Labour party could think of to avoid the West Lothian question, which would arise from the establishment of a Scottish Assembly. Scotland is already over-represented in the House. If it had its own assembly, there would be a case for under-representation, or at least parity of representation, with England. With such a change, the over-representation of Labour would end and with it the theoretical possibility of a majority for a Labour Government, were one to be established.
To offset that, the Labour party proposes regional government in England. That is why it proposed the abolition of Kent county council and the creation of unitary authorities. Labour's environment spokesman supported unitary authorities for Kent in the first round.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment referred Kent back to the Local Government Commission, he had the support of his Labour opposite number, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who mentioned Dartford and Gravesham by name in his response in support of the reference back and of a unitary in north-west Kent. I hope that in her reply the Labour spokeswoman will explain

why the Labour party could not control local Labour activists. After all, the case was right, Labour's national interests required it, the Labour environment spokesman had put his name to it and Kent Labour had won control of the county council by pledging to abolish it.

Mr. Dunn: We are not liable to hear anything from the Opposition Front-Bench spokeswoman today. I have here a letter dated 27 February 1995 from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who spoke for Labour on local government matters, in which he promised a consultation paper on the functions and boundaries of the Greater London authority by the end of 1995. The implications of that letter for the territorial integrity of Kent are huge.

Mr. Arnold: Exactly, and that pledge has not been carried out any more than the pledge given by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, as spokesman for the environment, on the abolition of Kent county council.
If the Labour party Front-Bench team wanted a unitary authority for north-west Kent, why did not the Labour party locally deliver the means rather than oppose it? The answer is simple. To put it at its most basic, two council leaders into one council do not go. In the case of Kent county council, Labour went from opposition to mindless advocacy—from thinking that it would not be able to end 102 years of Conservative rule of that council to enjoying the fruits of temporary office.
When the Local Government Commission produced its proposal, Labour spent more than £1 million—in terms of direct spend, officers' time and use of the facilities and infrastructure of the county council—of council tax payers' money on a campaign of opposition to local government reform.
When I asked Kent county council to tell us the cost of that enormous, illicit campaign, I was told that the figures were not available. We hear so much from the Labour Front-Bench team here about open government and availability, but when Labour is in office the figures are not available.
Frankly, the Labour-controlled county council's campaign went far beyond the limits of propriety, for instance, in whispering to the staff, "You will have to re-apply to the new authority for your jobs." We should remember that Kent county council has thousands of employees, including teachers, social services staff and so on. The whispers went out from Labour to the voluntary organisations and other receivers of grants and awards from the county council that they would have to apply for that money to the new authorities, which would not have sufficient money to support them. Kent county council went further and told people to write to the commission, giving them the exact name and address, to tell it of their opposition to the reforms.
Labour in Kent argued that Kent would come to an end. The proud county of Kent has existed for centuries, whereas Kent county council has been with us for only 102 years. I do not think that we should confuse the two. To do so is either historically ignorant or deliberately and selfishly misleading.
Not to be outdone, Gravesham borough council did a U-turn and beat the drum for parochialism. It has been busy whipping up rivalry and dislike of our neighbours in Dartford. Recently, it even picked a sordid squabble over


which council should have the valley of Ebbsfleet and with it the international station. It has been totally disreputable to see the two Labour leaders of Dartford and Gravesham councils squabbling in that manner, potentially doing damage to those developments.
I reiterate that two leaders into one council do not go. Clearly that is the case. The leader of Kent county council is a Gravesend councillor, as is the leader of Gravesham borough council. Frankly, it is despicable that two petty ambitions have done so much to derail, not only hopes in north-west Kent, but the wishes of the national Labour party.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has had to tell the Leader of the Opposition, "I'm sorry, I can't deliver the English regions." What has happened? The Leader of the Opposition has backed off and is now talking about a referendum. My constituents would never vote for English regional government for the south-east. They already resent the remote county hall at Maidstone, which is wasting money on a vast bureaucracy. Why have parents voted overwhelmingly to go grant-maintained in eight out of nine secondary schools in my constituency? Because they believe that their schools can spend that 15 per cent. of money far better than the remote education administration in Maidstone.
If the Labour party held a referendum, my constituents would object to yet another layer of politicians and bureaucrats and the imposition of yet more taxation by a regional administration for the south-east located all the way over the other side of London in Reading, Berkshire.
What is the moral to be drawn from that saga? There has been a series of tests of Labour's fitness to govern and it has failed from top to bottom. Why do Labour Members want a Scottish Assembly? Because they are scared of the nationalists. How would they finance it? With a tartan tax. Would such a tax be popular? They back off when asked that question and answer, "Only if people voted for it." They suggest that there would be a margin of 3 per cent. on income tax for that tax, but if they asked people whether they wanted to pay an extra 3 per cent., the answer would be no, so the Labour party says, "Ah, but it could be 3 per cent. lower." As English Members of Parliament, what are we to think about that? We already subsidise the Scots considerably. Are we also going to subsidise them so that a Scottish Assembly can use our English subsidy to reduce the tax bills of Scotsmen?
Basically, the Labour party has not thought these things through. We have asked Labour Members how they respond to the West Lothian question. Is it by reducing Scottish representation in this House? Of course not. They will not face up to that question, because self-interest precludes that logical conclusion. What do they propose in its place? Imposing regional government on England. Would that be popular? Only if people voted for it, they say. Frankly, if the vote is no, which is likely to be the case, we are back to the West Lothian question, and have they an answer to that? No.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, were people to say yes to regional government, my constituents would suffer six layers of government: Europe, Westminster, regional, county, borough and parish. Would the Labour party abolish Kent county council? The national Labour party says yes, but the local Labour party says no.
What can one say amid all that confusion? The Labour party is not in government, but responsible for preparing for government. Judging by all that the Opposition have said, however, they have clearly not thought things through and, in the few places that they appear to have done so, they have buckled under pressure from the Scottish nationalists and local government leaders in county and town halls.
The real power in the Labour party lies, not with the local party, but with the Islington glitterati. We have been offered a welter of tax time bombs—the tartan tax, the regional levy, and uncapped council tax—and I submit that Labour is not fit to govern.

Mr. David Rendel: Like other hon. Members, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for raising today the review of local government. It staggered me, however, that he spent more than 20 minutes talking about anything but that subject. He spent a considerable part of his speech talking about the debts that local government owes and blamed them on the Labour administrations in the areas that he mentioned. He failed, however, to mention the debt owed by national Government. If he blames Labour for local government debts, he should, presumably, blame the Conservatives for national Government debts.
The hon. Gentleman spent the second part of his speech talking about a review of national government, and how the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party want to change it by devolving powers to Scotland, to Wales and to the regions of England. That has nothing to do with the review of local government. A review of local government has been taking place since 1992—something that the hon. Gentleman failed to mention.
The review no longer grabs the national headlines because it has dragged on for so long. It is unfortunate that many people in the community and in the media have lost interest. That is a measure of the review's failure. The mistake made by the Government at every stage has been to look at the structure, rather than the powers and responsibilities, of local government. The review should have started with the role and function of local authorities.
The error has been further compounded by a succession of conflicting—and, in one case, illegal—guidelines produced by the Government for the Local Government Commission. When the commission was finally forced to take account of local people's views, it overwhelmingly switched from proposing unitary authorities to proposing the status quo. When the Government were thwarted the first time around by the change in the commission, they went in with a Con-Lab pact and decided to set up a second tranche of reviews, discussed it all in advance with Labour, and came to conclusions about which areas they wanted to review and where they wanted to impose unitary status. That even happened if the council concerned—in this case, Gillingham—wanted no part in the Lab-Con grand design.
After wasting millions of pounds on a bungled review and having diverted substantial additional human and council resources into the review process, what is the latest twist to this catalogue of incompetence? In areas where orders have not yet been made, the Secretary of State has decided to keep the local people and their councils guessing for another year. That will waste more money and more time. There is no possible defence for that.
The Minister's defence is that the Government's timetable was always tight and they had run out of time to get the orders through before the elections this year. The Secretary of State set the timetable in the first place.
The commission's draft report of September 1995 made it clear that, when it started work on 4 July last year, it had a completion date of 2 January this year. In fact, the commission completed its recommendations by mid-December, earlier than it expected. If the Government argue that, from mid-December, they had insufficient time to lay the orders, the response must be that they should have known that when the commission originally set the completion date of 2 January. Why have local authorities been put on hold for another year?
Let us be honest about this: the review has been running since 1992 and Torbay, Herefordshire, Plymouth and Nottingham have been waiting for months to settle their future—I shall not mention the fiasco of the proposed changes in my home authority of Berkshire. Authorities want to get on with the job of providing decent services. Why will the Government not let them?
There are two reasons why the review has been put on hold, which are not the same as the Government's weak excuses. First, the Government are petrified of significant losses in elections to unitary authorities in May—had they got their act together and laid the orders in time, they would have been faced with huge losses in the unitary authorities. The elections will not now take place until the day of, or possibly after, the general election. The Government hope to avoid a series of embarrassing defeats in elections to unitary authorities by prompting people to vote on national issues rather than on local ones.
The greatest damage to the Conservative party over recent years has been its decimation in successive local elections, not least by the Liberal Democrats who have ploughed a deep furrow through Tory heartlands—from the west country, to the east coast and up to north Yorkshire. The Tory grass roots have all but disappeared in many areas. It is no wonder that the Government are running scared, but that is no compensation for local people or for council officers whose careers continue to hang in the balance.
The second reason for the Government's putting off the orders is that they simply have not allowed sufficient money in the Budget to finance structural change in the areas still under consideration. The tight settlement, coupled with unprecedented pressure from central Government to direct local authority spending, simply offers no room for manoeuvre—certainly not enough to pay for an expensive restructuring of local government.
It is worth noting that every one of the changes the Local Government Commission recommended in its second review entails significant on-going and set-up costs. It is clear from last November's Red Book that credit approvals are significantly down for 1996–97 compared with 1995–96 and previous approval plans. One can only assume that, within those figures, the Government have not made sufficient provision in supplementary credit approvals to allow reorganisation to go ahead this year.
I notice that approvals for 1997–98 are projected to be slightly increased. Will the Minister explain whether he has known for months—certainly well before last year's Budget—how much money has been in the Budget for these reviews and that the review orders would have to

be postponed? If so, why did he not tell the people in the affected areas that their review was to be postponed for another year? Is that why he calculated the Budget credit approvals so low? Did he know that he was not going to put through the orders in time for elections this year?
Perhaps the Minister will also make it clear when the orders will now be laid. The uncertainty continues. The least local authorities should be able to expect from the Government is a clear timetable that will be adhered to. The local government review has for many years exemplified Tory incompetence, but that is no reason to make matters worse by continuing to dither and to fudge. The Government have pledged more openness and more freedom of information—let them start here.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I shall give the House the opportunity to move away from the Kentish men and to visit our friends up north, particularly our Labour friends up north. It is right that people in the north-east of England should learn what Labour policy is for a regional assembly—and whether Labour is in favour of it.
The same situation exists in the north-east as exists in Gravesham in Kent—the Labour party is hopelessly split over what it wants to do. The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) is shaking her head, but just before Christmas the northern group of Labour Members—of which she may well be a member—gave an ultimatum to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that their price for supporting Scottish devolution was a northern assembly. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) said:
The northern group supports devolution for Scotland, but our price is devolution for England.
The implicit criticism here is of a minority of members of the shadow Cabinet who don't believe in devolution at all.
Does the hon. Lady support that statement?
When the people of the north-east of England consider a northern assembly with the tax-raising powers that the Scottish Parliament is meant to have—a sort of Geordie tax, as opposed to a tartan tax—they will be against that imposition. It would again draw a frontier between the north-east of England and the rest of the country. Long-suffering ratepayers in the north-east already have enough layers of government. Are they to have yet another one inflicted on them?
Recently, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield said categorically on television that if there were a regional assembly for the north, one layer of local government would have to go. The members of the northern group of Members of Parliament would say that there is no need for a tier of local government to go, because they do not want the Labour-controlled county council or the Labour-controlled district councils to fall out over the future of a northern authority.
The Leader of the Opposition has said that one level of local authority control will have to go. Which level would that be? Would it be the district councils, of which there are six in Northumberland, two of which are controlled by Labour; or would it be Northumberland county council, which has been controlled by Labour for a considerable length of time? In a fight between district councils and county councils, county councils would win.
The ratepayers in Northumberland would have a stark prospect—of a tax-raising regional assembly based somewhere like Durham, Teesside or Berwick and a


county council to look after local government matters that may be a considerable distance away. That would be the outcome of a northern assembly. I hope that the hon. Member for North-West Durham, who is no doubt a member of the northern group of Members of Parliament, will make Labour's plans clear to the people of the north-east. If the Labour party is to propose that extra level of bureaucracy, it should be clear about what it wants.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: The debate has been interesting. I was astonished at the speech of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). I assumed—naive as it may have been—that in an Adjournment debate on the review of local government, he would want to talk about his constituency and the wishes that he had expressed during the review for the future of his constituency and the unitary tier. However, he did not mention Dartford or the review of local government in Kent. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) mentioned that subject. I know that he and the hon. Member for Dartford have disagreed about the way forward for Dartford and Gravesham, so perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Dartford did not raise the subject.
Today's argument has supposedly been about the review of local government. In the debate, most Conservative Members have attacked local democracy. They do not seem to like the fact that the people have spoken—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: No, I have only a short time in which to make my speech.
The people have left this country with only 13 Conservative-run councils. There could not possibly have been 20 Tory authorities on the list of 20 authorities that the hon. Member for Dartford held up because there are no longer that many Tory authorities in the country. He seems to be concerned that the people of Britain have voted Labour at local level and that that stark fact leaves him with no arguments about the future of local government.
As I have argued from the Dispatch Box on several occasions, the Government have landed us with a more centralised system of government than any other country in Europe. We hoped that the Local Government Commission would attack that state of affairs—we have tackled the issue when debating regional assemblies. Conservative Members seem to forget that there has been a considerable devolution from Government of functions, but not of accountability and democracy. We have a strong regional tier of government: it comprises civil servants who operate within the regions with considerable powers and with responsibility for vast sums. They decide on single regeneration budgets and on the money that comes from Europe. They have incredible powers and are accountable only to Ministers, who have little time to spend in those regions or to deal with problems there.
I thought that in today's debate hon. Members from Kent would want to raise an issue that involves the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban

Regeneration, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is not here today. He is the Minister with responsibility for the Medway towns, but he has also had to make decisions about the Local Government Commission and take responsibility for them. There may be a conflict of interest there.
We have a strong regional tier of government that is simply not accountable. I do not believe that people in this country want money to be spent without any accountability and without their being able to have a say locally. The hon. Member for Dartford's most telling point was when he railed against regional proposals. He hit the nail on the head when he said that there was no support from Back Benchers and that he could not detect any support in the Chamber or, thankfully, from Government. Regional government is not meant to make life easier for us in Westminster; it is meant to represent effectively the people in the regions.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and I "share" a village. I represent one street in the village of Blanchland and he represents the rest of the village, which is north of the Tyne. People there feel that they are not adequately represented in Whitehall and Westminster. Decisions are being made in which they want to participate and they want a clearer understanding of how money from Europe is distributed and topped up. When villagers in my constituency do not benefit from RECHAR because the Government have pushed the money into other regions, they want to know why the Government take decisions centrally that do not reflect the way in which money from the European Community should be distributed throughout the regions. The Government are far too centralised; strategic decision making occurs at regional level, but there is no accountability for it.
The hon. Member for Hexham is new to the region in comparison to some of us oldies, so I shall explain what happened in the early 1980s. The Confederation of British Industry in the region, the Trades Union Congress in the region and local authorities in the area came together and recognised the need for a regional response to the de-industrialisation of our area. I moved the resolution at the Labour party conference and the regional TUC conference to set up the Northern Development Company. We set it up ourselves; it eventually won support from the Government and now receives backing from them. It has played a significant role in attracting inward investment to the north and in ensuring that the north has been able to fight back against de-industrialisation and its consequent heavy job losses and depopulation. The region recognised that it needed a coherent voice and a strategic arm. The company has always recognised—as would the proposed northern regional assembly, which is also to be set up on a voluntary basis—that there should be a more accountable voice working alongside it, which is what our regional assemblies are designed to provide. We have proposed a referendum to bring such voices into the process.
Such matters do not involve serving politicians or servicing the needs of politicians; they involve responding to the needs of people locally.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Lady said that the issue should not involve serving politicians. Does the Labour Front-Bench team support the serving politicians—the Labour leaders of Kent county council and Gravesham


borough council—or does it continue to support the opinion of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the Opposition's spokesman on the environment, who told the House that he supports a unitary authority for north-west Kent?

Ms Armstrong: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask that question. We have never moved from supporting, in principle, the idea of unitary authorities—

Mr. Arnold: In north-west Kent?

Ms Armstrong: In north-west Kent or wherever there is local support for it. Our complaint, like that of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), is that the Government set up the review in such a pathetic and ineffective way that they have ended up with another dog's breakfast.
Local government is sick of being tinkered with and local people are sick of never being allowed to work out a solution that meets their needs. If the Government had identified the functions and decided the size of authority that they wanted, we should not be in the present position and the people of Kent would not be in their present position. Lack of clarity from the start is the reason that the problems have not been solved. [Interruption.]
It is no good Conservative Members trying to blame us. We have not been in government. Conservative Governments have landed local government and local people with the mess, and it is about time that they recognised that they must work more effectively and democratically.
Signs in the past week have given no cause for hope that the Government are recognising people's crying need and demand for proper democratic accountability. Tragically, the Government move daily away from that.
Local government must be given the support and opportunity to respond effectively to local demands and needs. In that spirit, we shall open government to people at local level and give them, if they want, the right to a regional strategic voice.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): The debate has been much more interesting than I expected. It has moved from one side of the country to the other and from Scotland to the far south—indeed, I thought that we would cross the channel at one point. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) must be thanked for initiating the debate and for broadening it.
There was not much discussion of the review, which I believed was the theme of debate, but the debate became much more interesting. As hon. Members are aware, there was an opportunity for my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) to argue the case for his area, which has been argued with some force during the consultation period. I note the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) returning to the Chamber; he made a similar case.
The consultation period has just ended. Decisions will be taken and an announcement made soon. I suspect that debate about that will continue for some time and that the

hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will continue to whinge, as he has today, with little opportunity to gain anything from it.
The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) was slightly caught out because she seemed to be hurt by the two-minute speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and concentrated on him.
There was some mention of the fact that Labour-controlled and Liberal-controlled councils are slightly more numerous than previously. Of course, local elections will go that way, but local people are learning that that is an expensive option. It means increased and high regulation and high interference. People must learn that classic lesson to help them assess the merits of the argument made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who sought more centralisation of local government and greater control. I shall return to that.
The hon. Member for North-West Durham spoke about Government offices. Government offices are in the regions so that we achieve closer contact and a closer feel, but the hon. Lady views that in a paranoid way. The old saying that she always perceives the light at the end of the tunnel as an oncoming train is appropriate. She must recognise that the siting of those offices gives Ministers the opportunity to obtain useful local information from people working in the area, but ultimately decisions are made by Ministers.
The most interesting, and the major, part of the debate was about centralising local government and inserting another managerial tier. I have a natural tendency to support the idea of unitary authorities because I suffered under the Greater London council and the Inner London education authority, and I emphasise that we did suffer under local and central government in those days.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West spoke of wishing to be mayor. That does not surprise us. One has visions of Labour Members waving a mayoral chain and waving a jester's stick and deriding London's importance. It is an extremely important capital. It is vital to the country and it is vital that it continues to be as competitive as it is now without all the interference that we had before.
The interference was staggering. I remember the Greater London council interfering in decisions about numbers on doors in housing estates. That is not the role of regional government. It never had any power. It was absolutely—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Sir Paul Beresford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Greater London council sought a strategic role and it was largely self-invented. The search amused me occasionally. I remember the GLC's leader riding round the rose garden in Battersea park on an elephant. It was the first time that he had taken any interest in a mammal—certainly a four-legged mammal. It was an intriguing effort to invent a function for the GLC.
The GLC ended up as a middleman, fighting everyone. It fought those above, regardless of the political complexion of the Government and regardless of the political complexion of the GLC or the London county council before it, and it fought the lower tier.
It is said that the GLC had a strategic role. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West will recognise the old battle that we had when docklands was set up under the Greater London council with the "co-operation" of local Labour-controlled authorities. That was a long period of stagnation.
Since then, the London Docklands development corporation has turned things around. There are 36,000 jobs on the Isle of Dogs, compared with fewer than 20,000 in 1992. Jobs in docklands have increased from slightly more than 51,000 to almost 66,000. If the rate of growth continues, now that the link is in, those may soon be 70,000 plus. There has been a more than 70 per cent. increase in let office space. About £6 billion of private investment has been attracted since 1981, compared with £1.7 billion of public investment. That is what we want.
The area is growing. We have had 73 per cent. growth since 1981. It is now up to 68,000 and by the year 2000—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length and I have four minutes left so, if he does not mind, I will not give way; I am trying to speak and breathe at the same time, which is a feat that one learns.
We should acknowledge the importance to the country of a London with fewer regulations, without the havoc that the tax-making power of an additional authority would create. The Economist considered that issue in August 1995. It conducted a detailed review of the government of London. It did so because London is more vital to this country than other capital cities are to their countries. It is vital that it has the freedom to move.
The Economist said that a big central authority for London was likely to damage, not enhance, London's long-term economic interests and that the city could

continue to adapt and grow flexibly without central planning. It said that London's fragmentation was a source of strength rather than weakness and that the lesson for rising magna-cities was that a central strategic authority was not essential for prosperous growth. Self-governing neighbourhoods worked better than a single city hall and were a safer base for an urban economy.
That is what is happening; that is the way in which London is making progress. We now have co-operation between the Cabinet Ministerial Sub-Committee on London, the private sector and other independent organisations. A single group of local authorities is starting, without the dead hand of the Greater London council, to co-ordinate activities extremely productively.
That is why land is being regenerated, businesses are coming to this country and business men from overseas are coming to London. They come to London because London has the freedom. London is, in the opinion of many of those business men,
the most deregulated capital city in Europe.
That is why about 40 per cent. of American and Japanese investment in Europe comes through London. That is why it is worth while—I emphasise arguments by some of my hon. Friends—having a link between London and Europe; it is our passageway through.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West was asked where the boundaries should be, but he did not answer. He cannot answer that question because the location of the boundaries would depend on the function of the London authority. He must recognise its taxing power. We are talking about a strategically important capital city and, as such, we must acknowledge that no regional London authority—whatever its political power and that of central Government—has had or will have the control that it desires. Such an authority would stagnate London.

Ever Ready Factory, Tanfield Lea

Mr. Giles Radice: The purpose of the debate is to draw to the attention of the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy, and of Parliament, the closure of the Tanfield Lea zinc carbon battery-making facility in my constituency, with the loss of 350 jobs. I am seeking Government assistance to help the area to recover from that blow.
I was shocked and disappointed to hear about the closure, as, when I opened the 25th anniversary celebrations at the factory in 1993, Ever Ready International management assured me that the plant had a bright future. The plant was opened by Anthony Crosland in the 1960s under the regional policy of that time. It was taken over by Hanson in the 1970s, and, under its ownership, the plant and its work force were run down. The plant was eventually sold to the international Ever Ready company, which assured my constituents that the plant at Tanfield Lea would be integral to its international plans.
However, the international company dropped a bombshell on 17 January. when it announced the closure of the battery-making facility. The plant itself has not closed, as the company will operate a satellite unit employing about 40 people. However, I believe that that is only a temporary measure.
The closure of the facility—which is the biggest manufacturing plant in my constituency—has had an enormous impact. First, jobs have been lost in an area where unemployment is above the national average, and young people now face reduced employment opportunities—which is a bad blow in itself. Secondly, valuable income has been lost in an area of below average incomes. When people lose fairly well-paid jobs and go on the dole—which many of them are likely to do—less money is available to households and to the entire area.
The Minister, who used to represent a northern constituency, knows that Derwentside has had its problems. The Consett steelworks closed in 1980–81—I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that, despite his embarrassing gaffe on a local radio programme—but the area has made a considerable recovery, partly due to the very effective work of the local development agency.
In light of the recent bad news, I convened a meeting at the plant with the international management, the chief executive of Derwentside and the director of the development agency. I urged the company to reconsider its decision—in particular, I asked it to switch to the production of alkaline batteries, for which there is a much larger market. The company denied my request. It said that the efficiency of the plant or the effectiveness of the work force was not in question—on the contrary, it had nothing but praise for its operations—and it pointed to a change in its worldwide strategy and the necessities of the global market.
In western Europe in particular, zinc carbon batteries are being replaced by long-life batteries. Even though there is a big market for zinc carbon batteries in Asia and Latin America, according to the company, that demand can be met more efficiently by its so-called super-factories in those regions. The company took the

decision for international strategy reasons, and my constituency was reminded once again that Britain is part of the international market.
I accept the company's decision: I can do little to change it. However, I have told company representatives that they must fulfil their corporate responsibilities—they cannot simply walk away from the area. I am pleased to report that the company agreed to co-operate with the Derwentside task force in the rundown of the company, which will occur over a year. It is committing funds to retraining and to re-employment services.
The Derwentside task force is vital to the recovery of the area, so it must continue to operate effectively. As the Minister knows, the task force was set up after the collapse of the Consett steelworks, and it has now been reconvened. We have that facility in the area partly because of the problems we faced in the past: we know how to deal with jobs crises. The local council, the development agency, County Durham training and enterprise council, and representatives of English Partnerships, the Department of Trade and Industry and the office of the north will serve on that body. It has met once and another meeting is scheduled.
The task force has produced an outline strategy, which will concentrate on retraining, providing alternative jobs and reclaiming the site. It faces a problem in its latter objective, as battery making involves chemical operations, which means that the site must be cleaned very effectively. The task force aims also to attract alternative industry to the area. I am glad that we have been joined in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who also represents the Derwentside area.
I shall tell the Minister what we want the Government to do. He recognises that there must be a partnership between the local area and the Government, and I would like him to refer to that issue today. If he accepts that this is a major factory closure and a major redundancy, I understand that that would allow the County Durham TEC to become fully involved.
As to co-ordination, a number of different Ministries are involved. Representatives of the Departments of Trade and Industry—which the Minister represents—of the Environment and of Education and Employment must come together and devote their wisdom, energy and resources to a co-ordinated effort to assist the area. We need maximum support from the Government and from European funding programmes. I am not an expert on all the funds, but I understand that money is available from various sources, such as English Partnerships, the single regeneration budget and other European funds. We need the Minister's help and advice on how to access those funds and apply the full force of what is available in the constituency.
As the Minister knows, we have asked for a meeting with him and other Ministers either in London or in my constituency to discuss the problem, examine it at first hand and agree on a joint strategy involving the locality and the Government in trying to overcome a very severe blow to my constituency.
I very much hope that the Minister can help us. I come here not in a partisan mood, but to explain the problems to Parliament and to the Minister, and to ask the Government to help us meet the crisis and produce an answer that will assist my constituents.

The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): All Members, unless they are very new or very lucky, have had the painful experience that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) is now facing. It is something that I most dread as a constituency Member. One has to do one's best when a body blow of this nature occurs in one's constituency.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in the ballot that has enabled him to raise those concerns today in the House. As we all know, one cannot guarantee the results of a ballot, and the hon. Gentleman's success has enabled those concerns to be aired in a public forum and has given me the opportunity to respond. I should like to think that, at the end of the debate, the hon. Gentleman will find it a helpful response.
The announcement on 18 January by Ever Ready was a blow to the people at Tanfield Lea and the surrounding Derwentside and north Durham area. It appears that there is no prospect of reversing the decision to close the battery production facility, with the loss of 350 jobs. I know that the hon. Gentleman has discussed the matter with the Ever Ready management, and I understand that the decision was made for global strategic reasons and is no reflection on the commitment and the performance of the work force in Tanfield Lea over many years; but it has happened, and we now have to bounce back.
The challenge that faces the area is to find a coherent and comprehensive response. I understand that the company has offered outplacement services to its redundant employees; that is welcome, but it is only a first step.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Derwentside has risen to those challenges in the past, notably the closure of the steelworks in Consett in 1980. That was in no small measure due to the efforts of the local partnership that is spearheaded by the Derwentside industrial development agency. We should pay tribute its success in attracting new industries to the area over the years including biotechnology, aerospace and high-quality food manufacturing. That provides a strong base on which everyone can build.
That base has been further strengthened—I speak as the Minister responsible for small business—by the formation of new and vigorous small businesses in the area, which have created some 5,000 jobs over the past 15 years. The growth of those businesses remains a priority. The small firms in Derwentside are undoubtedly benefiting from the county-wide single regeneration budget, which has been valued at more than £2 million and has created some 69 businesses and self-employment for more than 500 people in the past year alone.
In support of those projects, a comprehensive network of advice services has been established, including a Derwentside outlet for the business links network in the county of Durham. I am absolutely convinced that, as the months unfold, the value of business links will become increasingly important in helping those businesses develop and expand.
My Department has been active in providing more than £400,000-worth of regional selective assistance grants to small firms in the area during 1995 alone. That, in turn, has created some 100 jobs. We have been active in the area for many years. Since 1981, my Department made

165 offers of RSA grants worth some £16.5 million to Derwentside companies towards the creation and safeguarding of nearly 4,800 jobs.
As a consequence of all that, unemployment in the Newcastle travel-to-work area, covering most of Derwentside, has fallen from 16.5 per cent. in 1985 to below 10.5 per cent. today. In Consett, which bore the brunt of the impact of the steelworks closure, unemployment has fallen by more than 50 per cent., from a staggering 8,000 in the early 1980s to 3,500 in 1995. It is living proof that the initiatives are working, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that those are impressive achievements. but they are not enough. We have to do more, so what more can we do?

Ms Hilary Armstrong: I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, because it is important that we hear the Government's view. It is also important, however, that the House recognises one of the consequences of the closure of the steelworks and other sources of employment.
There are now significant numbers of men in particular who have not worked since they lost their jobs, and are unlikely to work again. They are not included in the unemployment figures that the Minister has just given us, because they received a redundancy package which took them off the unemployment register, or because their wives are working.
There is a significant problem in Derwentside among older men aged 50 to 55, who have not had employment opportunities. We are also looking for measures to enable them to find a way back into work. The Minister may not be able to help us this morning, but I hope that the Government will take into account the fact that some of the men who work at Ever Ready and come from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend fear that they may not work again because of the loss of jobs there.

Mr. Page: I fully understand those worries and concerns, but I should point out that there has been a substantial improvement in the area from the position some 15 or 16 years ago. To be perfectly honest and open with everybody, although that is good, there is more to be done. We are not resting on our laurels and saying that we have now finished. There is more to be done and, as a Minister, I am perfectly willing to try to improve matters.
I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman said—that the process of formulating a response to the Ever Ready announcement has already begun, and several meetings of the Derwentside task force have already taken place. They were attended by the Government office for the north-east as well as English Partnerships, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that my officials will continue to play an active role in the process, now and in the period from May onwards when the job losses begin to take effect.
It might be helpful if I touch on some of the key issues that need to be tackled as a matter of urgency. Perhaps the most immediate task is to consult the other occupants of the site to ensure that the announcement by Ever Ready does not impact negatively on their business and long-term prospects.
Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman has already mentioned, it is important to work with Ever Ready to ensure that the jobs that are to be retained on the site—about 40—for the production of zinc calots and liner papers will remain for


the long term. It is also important that, within that number, a small research and development team has been retained. That will help to provide the remaining work force with a focus for some new development.
The agencies will also need to work closely with those companies on plans to redevelop the site in the future and on how the site will be marketed to attract new industry. I am sure that English Partnerships, the Northern Development Company, DIDA and others will prove to be up to that task.
Another priority will be the training and retraining of people affected by the job losses, which touches on the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong). I am pleased to announce that the Employment Service has agreed to waive its usual eligibility criteria, to provide immediate access to its schemes for the Ever Ready work force. That is a positive step in trying to ensure a continuation of job prospects.
Officials are working closely with the County Durham training and enterprise council to identify the areas where resources can most usefully be deployed, to tackle the immediate effects of the announcement. The overriding priority—I am sure all hon. Members are on this wavelength—will be to create new jobs. I am delighted to announce that my Department has offered a £940,000 grant to a major company in the area for an expansion project that should create well over 100 new jobs.
The House will understand that I cannot be too specific at this moment, because of the commercial confidentiality of the current discussions. However, that development represents an immediate response to the Ever Ready announcement. We all hope that that grant will be accepted, and that the project comes to fruition.

Mr. Radice: Is that potential project in Derwentside, or nearby?

Mr. Page: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press me, because, if I am too specific, everybody will be able to work out the location and the company's identity. The offer has been made, and we are waiting to learn whether it has been accepted. I hope that we will be able to announce the creation of 100 new jobs and their location.
Derwentside is well placed to take advantage of the north-east region's outstanding record of success in inward investment—some £4 billion over the last 10 years, creating or safeguarding more than 50,000 jobs. It reflects to the credit of this country that so many overseas organisations have established themselves in the UK and are playing a full and vital part in the manufacturing process.
One example is a recent investment by Nippon Silica Glass to manufacture silica quartz at Annfield Plain. Silica quartz is a vital component in the manufacturing process for wafers at the successful Fujitsu plant nearby—which last year announced a huge additional investment of some £800 million to increase production and jobs.
There is a need for a wider local regeneration strategy. I welcome the target that the Derwentside economic development strategy has set itself, of securing 500 net new jobs for the area by the year 2000 through inward investment. It is vital that all the local partners work together to make sure that that challenge is met.
That objective will certainly be assisted by the £100 million Project Genesis development to redevelop the centre of Consett and to establish a high-quality business park on the former British Steel site at Berry Edge, in addition to impressive leisure facilities. The Government have also provided £1.2 million of support through the derelict land grant programme, as well as £1 million of support through European regional development funds for the project. My Department also stands ready to discuss further funding packages for that flagship project, as and when required. We anticipate that the development will create at least 2,700 jobs, as well as improving industrial land and infrastructure in the area.
More generally on the regeneration front, the first two rounds of the single regeneration budget included two large projects for Consett and Stanley worth more than £5 million in total, which shows that resources are being put where they are needed.
The hon. Member for North Durham asked whether he could bring a delegation to meet me or another Department of Trade and Industry Minister. The answer is yes—I would be more than willing. However, perhaps I may offer the hon. Gentleman a choice—what more can I do for him? The relevant people could come to the Department to discuss matters. Alternatively, my noble Friend Lord Fraser, who is the sponsor Minister for the region, would be prepared to meet when he is in the area a delegation led by the hon. Gentleman to discuss matters there and then, on the spot.
I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to decide which arrangement he prefers. No doubt he will discuss those proposals with the people involved in his constituency and let me know his decision. I hope that, by then, even further plans for tackling the redundancies will have firmed up, and we can make a more focused response to help the people who are going to be out of work.
I assure the hon. Member for North Durham that my Department is actively engaged in the process of assisting the people of Derwentside to deal with the consequences of Ever Ready's announcement. It has been made absolutely clear that Ever Ready's decision is due to no failing on the part of the company's work force, but is for global strategy reasons. Such decisions are made sometimes, and they are a damaging blow—but I am certain that the hon. Gentleman's constituents can come together in a focused and positive way to bounce back.
The evidence of the past 15 years, and the announcements that I have been able to make today, make me confident that the partnership in north Durham will meet the challenge. I look forward to learning the hon. Gentleman's decision on the arrangements to meet his delegation.

Red Squirrels

Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is a pleasure from time to time to enter the Chamber to participate in a debate that is not acrimonious. Sometimes the House is at its best when there is general agreement, and the protection of a part of our valuable wildlife—the red squirrel—is a subject dear to many hon. Members' hearts.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) for her early-day motion calling for greater protection for the red squirrel, which has received widespread support from hon. Members of all parties. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). We share many common interests, including one-eyed lorry drivers.
The red squirrel faces a serious plight. As recently as the 1920s, the red squirrel was commonplace throughout most of the British isles. One could see it even in suburban gardens. It was ubiquitous throughout the nation. Today, the red squirrel has retreated to a few outposts. It is found on the Isle of Wight and Brownsea island, and in a few places in Wales. There are about 50 red squirrels in Thetford forest, and a few can be found on the Lancashire coast, in north Lancashire and in Durham. However, the red squirrel's last refuge is really Northumberland and Cumbria, where the species is still found in numbers.
The reason is that there are no grey squirrels in those areas. The problem that the red squirrel faces is competition from the grey. The grey squirrel was introduced to this country in the 19th century as an ornament in parkland. It comes from north America and is much more robust than our native red. The consequence is that the grey squirrel beats our native species to the best habitats and to the available food, so the red squirrel disappears from areas invaded by the grey.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have a different species in your area—a black squirrel imported from south America by the Dukes of Bedford many years ago. They have now escaped into the surrounding countryside, and although they are attractive, they will only add to the problems faced by our native red.
I pay tribute to the organisation known as Red Alert. The group is chaired by Viscount Ridley and is made up of a number of wildlife organisations and forestry interests: the Northumberland Wildlife Trust, the Timber Growers Association, the Forestry Commission, English Nature and others concerned about the steady decline of the red squirrel. They banded together some time ago and raised the profile of the campaign to safeguard the future of the red. Without that campaign, the red squirrel would have continued to disappear from the last few places where it is found, and some time during the next century, this once popular and much loved specimen of our wildlife might have disappeared altogether.
Red Alert's greatest achievement has been to publicise the issue and bring it to the attention of the public. It has also won a great deal of support from farmers, foresters and landowners in the north. One tactic that Red Alert is working on is the drawing of lines around the areas where red squirrels live. The idea is to repel the grey squirrel from further advances to the south and the north. There are now grey squirrels in the Scottish border country;

the danger is that they will move over the border into Northumberland. The people who own and cultivate the land there have become interested in a system of culling grey squirrels before they can spread further.
Whereas most of Northumberland used to be free of greys, in recent months there have been reports of greys in the southern part of my constituency. Red Alert has engaged in further practical projects, including studying data on red squirrels, drawing up a map of their distribution, and training people involved in forestry in the control of greys and in creating habitats more suitable for reds.
A two-pronged operation is called for: the control of the grey squirrel and the encouragement of the red. The red does better in certain habitats; the grey is dominant in broadleaf woodlands, but the red survives well in conifer plantations. In the Kielder forest in Northumberland, which is part of the forest of Spadeadam, Forest Enterprise is creating a reserve for red squirrels by carefully felling and planting trees of specially selected species.
For instance, the red does not like the ubiquitous Sitka spruce, but it likes the Norway spruce. So in the reserve, Norway spruce will become the dominant tree. It is also important that those planting the new community forests design them with our native red squirrel in mind.
Control is the other side of the coin. It is difficult to discuss the subject because squirrels are seen as furry animals, liked and fed by members of the public in the royal parks. The latter do not understand sometimes that restoring the red squirrel involves controlling the greys. Extermination of the species will never happen, but control is called for.
The only really satisfactory method is the use of warfarin, a rat poison. It has been used for a long time by forestry interests, because the grey squirrel is a serious pest for forestry. Ten or 15-year-old hardwood trees that have survived the early stages of development when they are most at risk and which are just about to prosper and become full-grown trees are the ones attacked by the squirrels, which peel their bark off. Sometimes that kills the trees; sometimes they are merely stunted.
The difficulty is that the pesticide regulations rightly forbid the use of warfarin in areas where there are red squirrels. We do not want to kill reds at the same time as greys. The Forestry Commission and others, including the Countryside Council for Wales, have developed a method of feeding the poison to grey squirrels but not to reds. This is done with a specially designed hopper. The red cannot get into the feeder because it is much weaker than the grey and cannot lift the lid.
If these experiments are successful, we want the Minister to help us by redrafting the pesticide regulations—the warfarin order—so that these special traps may be brought under the control of local wildlife authorities, and we can begin to control grey squirrels in areas where they are advancing on the territory of the reds.
There is not much point in a campaign to control greys in areas where there are no reds left. It is in the border areas where both exist that control is vital.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent case, and has


made some important points. Although warfarin is probably highly effective in the short term, it is an unfortunate poison in terms of its effects on animals. The hon. Gentleman touched on controlling squirrels by alterations to habitats, and other non-lethal means. Does he agree that, in the longer term, non-lethal methods of control such as contraceptive bait, habitat creation and food supplies for red squirrels might prove even more effective at controlling the problem?

Mr. Atkinson: I agree entirely. At present, warfarin is the only practical method we have. Shooting is not effective. Live trapping is possible, and if a red is accidentally trapped it can be released; but that puts a certain stress on red squirrels, and it is time-consuming and labour-intensive. Moreover, if the traps are not regularly inspected, the victims may be caused considerable suffering.
Contraceptive bait is being investigated at the moment. Sheffield university, funded by the Forestry Commission, is involved in the research. The effect is to sterilise male grey squirrels. That may come as a surprise to them, but it will be a humane way of reducing their numbers.
There is also an experiment under way in Anglesey, where there are 50 reds left and 1,000 greys. The Countryside Council for Wales is providing feed hoppers to find out whether the experiment will work. If it satisfies those who supervise our pesticide regulations, the rules must be changed to allow the system to be deployed in the border territories.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) is correct to emphasise the importance of habitat creation suitable for red squirrels. We might use the new woodland improvement grants for this purpose. The Forestry Commission gives out such grants for several projects, and it would be useful if this project could be considered for a grant. Thus, the costs of grey squirrel control, and of habitat creation for red squirrels, could be borne by woodland improvement grants.
Scientific advances in contraceptive bait will probably offer the long-term solution to the problem of the grey squirrel. If so, it will become possible to consider the reintroduction of the red squirrel to areas from which it has vanished—to the royal parks, for instance. They were once common there, but London children who visit the parks think that all our squirrels are grey. That is very sad. As the hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, in addition to reducing the number of grey squirrels, one has to supplement the feed of red squirrels for them to prosper.
I hope that the debate will be helpful in drawing attention to the growing problem facing red squirrels, and will make us all, including the Government, determined to save that treasured species of English wildlife from extinction.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) for allowing me a moment or two in the debate, and we are all keen to hear what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has to say.
When I was doing the job that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is now doing, I paid a visit to Mere Sands wood, which is adjacent to my present constituency of South Ribble and will form part of my new

constituency. The wood is controlled by the Lancashire Wildlife Trust, and it contains a small number of red squirrels, largely because of the island habitat to which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred. The grey squirrels cannot jump across to the island to cause problems.
When I was a small boy, I used to walk to school through Highgate woods—a very ancient woodland area—in London, and I saw red squirrels there. A small amount of money was offered at one stage to people who killed grey squirrels, which were even then damaging the red squirrels' habitat. I believe that there are now no red squirrels in London or the south-eastern area. My part of world is the first place on the way north in which you would bump into red squirrels, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as opposed to black ones.
I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to pay great attention to the problem. The red squirrel is a very important part of the indigenous mammal life of this country. I am delighted that Viscount Ridley and the Red Alert campaign are trying to save the red squirrels. I hope that we can generate more red squirrels in the future, because they are important for our native habitats. I will do all I can to ensure a future for the red squirrels in Mere Sands wood and other areas.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this subject. It might be thought by those outside to be a slightly esoteric subject to raise on the Adjournment, but it is important. If we do not address the problem now—as the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) knows from his knowledge of his constituency—there will be no red squirrels left in England. Content as I am to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in his place representing Scotland, I wish to keep red squirrels in England, not just Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has done the country and the House a service by raising the issue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution to this important debate. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on securing a debate on an important subject of wide interest in the House and outside. I am sure that it will be of great interest to many of my hon. Friend's constituents. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). I take on board the strong message about the importance of this subject and the need to maintain the bastions of red squirrels to help their survival.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has spoken about the significant pressures on our native red squirrel. Indeed, the United Kingdom's red squirrel population has suffered a marked decline in the past 50 years. It is, after the water vole, our second most rapidly declining mammal. During the same period, we have seen the grey squirrel increase in numbers and range throughout most of England and Wales.
The spread of grey squirrels is one of three factors that have had a negative effect on reds. Habitat fragmentation is a second contributory factor, where areas become less able to support reds and thus indirectly increase their


vulnerability to displacement by greys. Disease is another contributory factor. However, although such situations are complex, conservationists agree that the spread of the grey squirrel, which was first introduced to this country from America about a century ago, is a main factor in the decline of the red squirrel. The Government do not underestimate the threat to that popular and important native species, and we are committed to its conservation.
The current population estimate of red squirrel numbers is at about 160,000. Its distribution, as the House has heard, is now largely confined to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the extreme north of England. There are scattered and isolated populations persisting in southern England, on three islands in Poole harbour in Dorset, at Cannock Chase in Staffordshire, at Thetford in Norfolk, and, as the House has heard, on the Isle of Wight. The last mentioned is an important colony, and I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) in his place.

Mr. Barry Field: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is an offence to take a grey squirrel to the Isle of Wight? In view of the declining population of red squirrels, will he consider whether that legislation is still adequate?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and I will consider the legislation to which he has referred.
In Wales, only a few thousand red squirrels remain, confined to scattered localities. In northern England, they are found only where greys have not yet established themselves.
It is estimated that the largest populations remaining in England are those in Cumbria—my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is in his place—north Lancashire—my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble mentioned the island with which he is so familiar—and Northumberland. Those locations contain about 85 per cent. of the total red squirrel population in England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham rightly said, it seems that Northumberland is relatively important in its red squirrel numbers, in comparison to the rest of the country, and it is therefore vital to safeguard its population from the encroachment of the grey.
The steps that I will outline as taking place to prevent the red squirrel from disappearing from this country are fully in accordance with the undertaking to maintain biodiversity which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made at the earth summit at Rio in 1991. I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I put this subject in that context.
At that summit, more than 150 countries recognised the importance of maintaining the existing range of fauna and flora species by signing the convention on the conservation of biological diversity. That convention recognised that action must take place locally, nationally and globally, if global biodiversity is to be protected. The conflict that we see in Britain between our native red squirrel and the introduced grey, and the threat that the latter poses to the red squirrel, encapsulates the need for our intervention to prevent a species from disappearing from our shores and perhaps further afield.
The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of the recognition of the importance of conserving biodiversity and, in response to the commitment made in article 6 of the biodiversity convention, in January 1994 the Government were the first to publish an action plan to secure that biodiversity. The House may be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently chaired the OECD environment policy committee at ministerial level. The meeting was very successful and identified a number of strategies and tools required to meet the environmental challenge facing OECD countries in the next century.
The biodiversity steering group, which was established early in 1994, produced its report and recommendations last December. While the Government will not formally respond to those recommendations until the spring of this year, the recommendations recognise the need to take action at a number of levels to conserve a species' status.
The red squirrel is one of 121 species for which the steering group has proposed a species action plan. The plan recommends a set of targets for the species and a range of actions to support those targets. Those actions form a wide-ranging strategy and fall into six broad categories: legislation and policy; site protection; species management and protection; advisory; continued research and monitoring; and communications and publicity.
The Government are already carrying out or considering many of those recommendations. I hope that, after hearing what I have to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham and the House will be satisfied that the Government are taking seriously the threat to this native species. In the areas of legislation and policy, the red squirrel is afforded the fullest protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Under that Act, it is an offence intentionally to kill, injure, take, possess, disturb or sell any wild specimen.
Furthermore, in an effort to control its spread, the grey squirrel appears on schedule 9 of the 1981 Act, which lists those species which it is an offence to release or allow to escape into the wild. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight says about the circumstances in his constituency. However, with numbers of the larger grey squirrel estimated to be 2.5 million and rapidly encroaching on the remaining red squirrel populations, more positive action is required to address this problem.
Additionally, good progress has already been made by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to complete the first target recommended by the biodiversity steering group, to achieve agreement on a UK red squirrel strategy. Indeed, this strategy is now nearing the end of an extensive consultative process, and is aimed to be published in the spring of this year.
The Forestry Commission will in turn be seeking to ensure that the needs of red squirrels are taken into account when indicative forestry strategies are prepared or reviewed. I take on board the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made about the forestry role.
In respect of site safeguard, the Government have encouraged their agencies to work closely with conservation organisations to meet this challenge. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Forestry Commission and conservation bodies are currently developing a strategy to maintain the red squirrel in its


current strongholds. Management plans for all key sites with viable populations will be prepared and are to be phased, with plans for all marginal sites by the year 2000 and all other sites by 2005. For example, a 2,000-hectare conifer woodland in north Wales has been set up as a special reserve for red squirrels by the Forestry Commission, working with the Countryside Council for Wales.
It is generally accepted that greys usually out-compete reds in deciduous woods, while reds are better able to survive in coniferous forests. Grey squirrels are much bigger and heavier than reds, and are better able to compete for the large seeds that many of our broadleaved trees produce—either because they can harvest them before the red squirrel or because they can digest them better. Therefore, in the typical broadleaved British wood, with its mix of oak, beech, hazel and chestnut, the American grey effectively out-competes the British red. The result is that the red squirrel cannot put on enough fat to survive the winter, and either starves or suffers reduced breeding success the following year.
Conservationists agree that, over time, red squirrels will disappear from areas invaded by greys. The prognosis is not, however, entirely gloomy because, in mixed coniferous forests, where the small and more nimble reds are better able to access the tiny conifer seeds, scientists currently believe that the British reds can, the House will be pleased to hear, out-compete their American cousins.
Government agencies are encouraging research into exactly what type, or more likely mix, of conifer trees are best for red squirrels. This research will consider how we should design such forests so that they may stand as a refuge for the red squirrel. In the Kielder forest—this will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham—the Forestry Commission is planting Scots pine and Norwegian spruce in preference to the more commonly planted Sitka spruce. These are varieties which produce the larger cones which red squirrels prefer.
Although the Kielder forest is currently the only site where the Forestry Commission is actively switching the type of tree being planted, it has produced guidelines for the management of coniferous woodlands, which encourage the planting of large-coned coniferous trees. This policy is aimed at encouraging landscape biodiversity as well as the survival of red squirrels. In the long term, this will be the most efficient way of conserving our red squirrels—managing the habitat so that they can compete for themselves.
At a more local level, the Forestry Commission's woodland improvement grant scheme, which was introduced last year, provides one-off grants for work programmes in woods and forests. Although the scheme is currently applicable only to recreational projects, the Government will shortly be considering proposals to extend its scope to other activities. We shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestions during that review process.
Action on species management and protection work has been targeted with the development of strategies to guide and co-ordinate work. This has been addressed with a major campaign—Red Alert. I join the tribute which my hon. Friend rightly paid to that campaign. As he said, it has been initiated to raise public awareness. The establishment of a UK squirrel forum brings together Government agencies and interested parties. They all attend the forum to exchange information and to co-ordinate their actions for the benefit of red squirrel conservation.
While habitat modification is widely accepted as the long-term solution, in the short term the strategy includes a recommendation to provide food for red squirrels in selective hoppers. That will give the more specialised red squirrel a better chance to survive shortages of its normal food. Consideration is being given to the control of grey squirrels on the borders of red squirrels' territories. It is hoped that, if they are carefully targeted and carried out in conjunction with woodland habitat management, these measures will help to protect the remaining red squirrel strongholds.
Importantly, English Nature, the Government's scientific adviser in England, has introduced a species recovery programme, which includes the red squirrel, and aims to achieve long-term sustainable survival of endangered species. English Nature's work has centred largely on Thetford forest, Norfolk, where, jointly with the Forestry Commission, it has been removing grey squirrels from a designated red squirrel reserve and managing the forest to benefit the reds.
The project has already seen some positive results, as more red squirrels have been seen in the area recently. However, the population is believed to be too small to be viable in the long term, and some restocking, in partnership with the People's Trust for Endangered Species, will be carried out once an ideal donor population can be identified from the results of a current genetics study. In Scotland, the red squirrel is one of Scottish Natural Heritage's top priority species within its species action programme.
The Forestry Commission in particular is undertaking research into methods of controlling grey squirrels. Live trapping is labour-intensive, but it is a commonly used method. I understand that the wildlife trust in my hon. Friend's constituency promotes training courses on live trapping. Warfarin poisoning is possibly as effective if carefully managed, and the Forestry Commission has developed a hopper for dispensing poisoned wheat to grey squirrels, which excludes red squirrels.
The Forestry Commission is discussing the use of the poison in this way with the pesticides safety directorate, with the aim of trailing the hopper for wider use in this way in 1997. I understand that the use of the poison in areas not specified in the warfarin order will not require any amendments to legislation, as permission may already be given under the control of pesticides regulations. If the trials are successful, there will be a major advance in controlling greys in areas where red squirrels are found.
I appreciate, and I am sure that the House will understand, that many of the public would view the destruction by poisoning of a species to control it as rather brutal, particularly as many people have not seen a red squirrel—that is why the grey squirrel is regarded as a welcome visitor to urban gardens and parks. Conservationists agree, however, that, where there is possible conflict between the two species, the control of the grey squirrel may often be necessary to conserve the red stocks.
The Forestry Commission is considering alternatives to warfarin poisoning and is sponsoring a research project at Sheffield university into immuno-sterilisation, making grey squirrels sterile by using a vaccine in food. This is a promising line of research, but, even if it is successful, it will be at least eight years before it can be implemented.
Government agencies are asked to provide advice to land managers on the relationship between reds and greys, and appropriate management. Guidance on forestry design has been developed to benefit red squirrels. The Forestry Commission offers advice to landowners in the form of technical publications and personal visits, and through the local squirrel management groups and the squirrel forum, and is preparing a comprehensive report on squirrel management. The commission also chairs the squirrel forum, and is involved in setting up a Scottish squirrel group.
Future research and monitoring will undoubtedly be necessary to ensure a secure future for the red squirrel. Many of the measures that I have described this morning will meet that objective.
Communicating the issues calmly and concisely to the public and landowners will be important, whatever action is decided on further to protect this species. The issue of the balance between red and grey squirrels can be an emotive one, and it is therefore essential that clear information to explain their relationship is made available to the public. Towards that end, the JNCC UK strategy will be made freely available to everyone. Educational material on the interactions between our native red squirrel and the American grey squirrel should also be made available, particularly to schoolchildren.
I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will agree that the Government are taking a wide range of action to preserve this important native species, which will benefit many hon. Members' constituencies that still have red squirrels. I once again pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this important subject, on which I am sure the House will hear more.

Mr. Sodagar Hussain

Mr. Max Madden: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to introduce a brief debate on the case of Mr. Sodagar Hussain, who, as a visitor, married in this country in 1985. He was advised to observe the law, returned to Pakistan and applied for a visa to rejoin his wife in the United Kingdom. He has made several unsuccessful visa applications since then, and he has had at least three appeals in Leeds dismissed.
Mrs. Hussain has had extended visits to Pakistan to be with her husband—not to be with him, but to demonstrate what the immigration laws describe as intervening devotion. Mr. and Mrs. Hussain have two children, a son of nine and a daughter of eight. Both children were born in this country and are, therefore, British citizens by birth.
Mr. Hussain's initial visa applications were turned down by entry clearance officers in Islamabad on the basis of the primary purpose rule. That hated rule is one by which the authorities say that the primary purpose of an application is to gain entry to the United Kingdom. By using that rule, the authorities are clearly saying that a marriage is not, in their view, genuine, and that it is bogus.
Mr. and Mrs. Hussain's marriage was viewed in those terms as late as 1990, after the birth of their two children. It is interesting to note that the Government's position on the primary purpose rule was radically affected by a critical judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights, following which the Government introduced a so-called concession by which couples who have been separated for five years or who have children are able to apply for a review of their case. I emphasise that it is only a review and does not in any way imply a guarantee that applicants will be granted a visa.
In April 1993, Mr. Hussain was refused another visa application because an official in Islamabad was not satisfied that adequate maintenance and accommodation were available in the United Kingdom without what is termed "recourse to public funds". John Molloy, the adjudicator in Leeds, dismissed Mr. Hussain's appeal against that decision in March of last year. Mr. Molloy clearly had considerable sympathy for Mr. Hussain and, especially, for Mrs. Hussain. In his verdict, which was published last year, he said:
I also bear in mind that she,"—
that is, Mrs. Hussain—
perhaps more so than other people in this country, would wish to secure employment not only to provide for her family but also to satisfy the Immigration Rules. In these times of economic uncertainty and difficulties in the labour market her efforts do her credit. The fact that she is able to save from her earnings also does her credit. These points count in favour of her husband.
Sadly, what does count against the appellant,"—
that is, Mr. Hussain—
and tellingly so in this appeal, is the fact that the sponsor has when entitled to do so claimed and received not only Income Support at the date of the decision but Family Credit some months after she commenced her first period of employment … in 1993.
Mr. Hussain made yet another application last year, which was refused, and he is now awaiting yet another appeal, to be heard in Leeds.
I met the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker), the Minister's predecessor, at the Home Office on 9 August last year. I subsequently received a reply, dated 16 November, from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, and who will reply for the Government in this debate. In that letter, he said:
Where a couple both work, family credit would be payable if their wages were low. The amount of family credit would depend on the wage but for a couple with two children, £195 is the lowest wage they could earn without receiving family credit.
The Immigration Department does not object to the settled partner receiving any assistance to which he or she is entitled in his or her own right, nor, in the short term, would there be any objection to assistance provided by third parties. However, the Immigration Rules do envisage both parties becoming self-supporting in the long-term and I am afraid that the evidence which Mr. and Mrs. Hussain have so far produced does not suggest that they would be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. I am afraid that in these circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to reverse the decision to refuse entry clearance, which, as you know, was upheld by the appellate authorities.
The Minister went on to say that he was copying the correspondence to our post in Islamabad.
How does the Home Office now define "long-term"? As this is clearly a significant shift in policy, when was guidance issued to adjudicators about the phrase "long-term"? Last year, Mr. Molloy was clearly unaware of that shift in policy when he took the decision to which I have referred.
On 22 November, I replied to the Minister's letter and said:
I must say I am most concerned it has taken the Home Office so long to reach such a monstrous decision. There can be very few couples, who have been separated for more than ten years, with two children, whose case has been dealt with so shabbily.
I would be most grateful for an early opportunity of discussing this case with you further to see if there is some way it can be resolved in favour of Mr. Hussain and his wife and family.
On 10 January this year, the Minister replied and again referred to Mr. Hussain's application of 1993. He went on to say:
Mr. Hussain appealed against the decision to the independent appellate authorities and at the time of the appeal hearing in March 1995, Mrs. Hussain was employed by a clothing company … She was earning £155 a week.
Mr. Hussain re-applied for entry clearance in June 1995 and there had been a change of circumstances as Mrs. Hussain now worked for"—
another company—
for … £89.75 for a 40 hour week.
I shall repeat that:
for … £89.75 for a 40 hour week." 
The Minister goes on to say:
The entry clearance officer considered that the wages were very low and as Mrs Hussain had two children to support it was likely that she would need that assistance of Family Credit payments. Moreover, the entry clearance officer discounted the possibility that Mr Hussein would gain employment in a reasonable time, or that Mrs Hussain's family would provide third-party support.
Mr. Hussain is now 36. When I first met Mrs. Hussain, in the late 1980s—I made representations by way of parliamentary questions in 1989—she was a bright and confident young woman looking forward to married life in Bradford with her husband and her children.

Now, I am sad to say, she is dejected and defeated, approaching her middle years and uncertain whether she will ever be united in this country with her husband and children. It is monstrous that a British citizen who has married and wishes to remain in this country with her husband and her British-born children should face such insecurity and uncertainty.
Mrs. Hussain has had to give up working full time, even for the miserably low wages that I described, because her sister, who is also married with children and has the misfortune to live in a low-income household, is no longer able to take Mrs. Hussain's young children to and from school. Mrs. Hussain, who was rightly praised by the adjudicator for all her efforts during those 11 years to establish a home and obtain employment, now works from 9 am until 3 pm from Monday to Friday, on commission, for the princely sum of £60 to £70 a week.
Low pay, especially for women, is endemic not only in the region that I and the Minister have the honour to represent, but across our country. The Government encourage low-paid workers to take family credit. Millions of pounds are spent on advertising to encourage low-paid workers to take advantage of family credit. The Government constantly boast of the number of workers who are supported by family credit. Over the years, what was Mrs. Hussain expected to do? She had struggled to obtain and keep a job, despite children. The view of the officials who were interviewing and refusing applications from her husband in Islamabad so frequently was that the pay was too low to support herself, her children and her husband. Was she expected to deny herself and her family the subsistence income that family credit provides, in the knowledge that if she accepted it there was every prospect that she would disqualify her husband indefinitely from ever being given a visa to join her and the children in Bradford? Was she to deny herself and her children that subsistence income in the forlorn hope that one day her husband would be given a visa? That is the dilemma that has haunted Mrs. Hussain and her family in the 11 years that she has been waiting for a decision to be taken.
The only sin committed by Mr. and Mrs. Hussain is that they are poor, and that is something with which many people caught up in immigration laws are afflicted. There seems to be one law for the well-off and an altogether different law for the poor and the most vulnerable. If the decision to refuse to grant Mr. Hussain a visa stands, many will conclude that only the well-off will be allowed to live together in this country in future.
I strongly believe that this case illustrates the overwhelming need for family credit to be taken off the list of public funds, so that no one who has the support of family credit, which is encouraged by the Government, is disqualified in the same way as Mr. Hussain. Unless and until that is done, low-income applicants and sponsors will be denied not only a basic decent income but their fundamental right to family union in this country. It is appalling that the Government have separated this couple for 11 long years. It is wrong that they should separate a husband from a wife, a father from his children. The time has come for the Minister, exceptionally and outside the immigration rules, to allow Mr. Hussain to join his family, so that he may enjoy the family union to which they are entitled.
I hope very much that, as a result of this short debate, the Minister will agree to consider my request, which would restore some prospect of hope for this couple to enjoy what is left of their married life together in Bradford, and send an important message to others in similar circumstances, that they should not forsake their hope of family union in this country. I hope very much that family credit, which has caused this couple such great difficulty over the past 11 years, will soon be exempted from the list of public funds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I listened most carefully to what was said by the hon Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), and I appreciate the reason for his determination to draw the attention of the House to his constituent's case.
The case concerns a decision to refuse entry clearance to the spouse of a person—the husband of the hon. Gentleman's constituent—settled in the United Kingdom. The application was refused because the entry clearance officer was not satisfied, as he must be, that adequate maintenance and accommodation were available to the couple in the United Kingdom without recourse to public funds. As the hon Gentleman said, this is the second time that the applicant has been refused entry clearance because the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that that requirement was met.
Parliament has provided a right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities in such cases. The applicant exercised that right against the earlier refusal, but his appeal was dismissed by an adjudicator in March last year. The applicant then re-applied for entry clearance in June. The application was refused in November. His appeal against that decision will be heard by the appellate authorities as soon as possible. The responsibility for the arrangement of hearings rests with the Lord Chancellor's Department, but I understand that the appeal is likely to be heard towards the middle of this year.
I have taken particular note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the steps that the sponsor has taken to find employment and to repay the mortgage on her home. Although it is impossible not to sympathise with her, the burden of proof as regards satisfying the requirements of the immigration rules in question rests squarely on the applicant. In other words, her husband must show that he and his wife can maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. Although I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about that rule, he will know that there are many examples where we require those who come to this country not to be a drain on public funds, of whatever kind. As the hon Gentleman will be aware, the independent appellate authorities, after carefully weighing all the evidence, concluded that the applicant had not discharged that burden.
The hon. Gentleman has presented his case thoroughly, but I am sure that he will not mind if I go over some of the facts that led the entry clearance officer to refuse the latest application, which was made just three months after the appellate authorities dismissed the applicant's appeal. At the time of the appeal hearing, the hon. Gentleman's

constituent was employed by a clothing company, earning £155 a week. There was also an offer of employment to Mr. Hussain in the same company. Moreover, the sponsor's sister had offered third-party support from her own funds.
The adjudicator considered all the facts. He noted that, in addition to working, the sponsor had been claiming family credit. He dismissed a job offer for the applicant as vague and inconclusive. He also dismissed the offer of third-party support as unrealistic, given the circumstances of the person making the offer and also given the fact that none had been paid so far. When the entry clearance officer came to consider the latest application, he found a change of circumstances. The sponsor no longer worked for the clothing company, although she had found alternative employment—but at a salary of just over £2 an hour.
Given that the adjudicator was unhappy with the sponsor's earlier employment, her present rate of pay was clearly equally unsatisfactory, and the entry clearance officer could not be satisfied that she would not have recourse to public funds. The entry clearance officer also considered it reasonable to discount the possibility that the sponsor would gain better-paid employment in a reasonable time, or that her family would provide third-party support.
The entry clearance officer acknowledged that the sponsor had now started making mortgage repayments from her own account, but, as she was probably still in receipt of family credit, he could not be satisfied that the payments were not being made, at least indirectly, from public funds. He concluded that, since the appeal hearing, there had been no improvement in either the maintenance or the accommodation aspect of the case, and he therefore refused the application. I am satisfied that that decision was fully in accordance with the clear requirements of the rules. An appeal has been lodged, and, if there is any further change to the couple's circumstances, it will be thoroughly considered by the appellate authorities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the hardship that the decision has caused the couple's two children, and suggested that I consider allowing the applicant to come to this country on an exceptional basis outside the rules. I agree that the welfare of children is an extremely important aspect, but it must be borne in mind that someone claiming an important benefit such as admission to this country with a view to settlement should have to demonstrate his eligibility. It is an important principle that, in both the immigration rules and most other functions of government, people must show that they are entitled to the benefit that they are claiming.
The applicant clearly does not qualify for admission, and only in the most exceptional circumstances would it be appropriate to waive the requirements of the rules, which have been approved by Parliament. The compassionate considerations in this case cannot be considered most exceptional, and I would not be applying the rules fairly and consistently—as I must do in order to maintain fair and firm immigration control—if I overruled the conclusions reached by the entry clearance officer and the appellate authorities, and issued entry clearance to the applicant.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the way in which the maintenance and accommodation requirements of the rules operate. I am glad to have the opportunity to put


their operation in context. We are not the first Government to act to prevent the admission of spouses when the parties to the marriage could not maintain themselves without drawing on public funds. As the hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware, the last Labour Government found it necessary to apply a similar requirement. It would be impossible to overestimate the additional burdens that would be placed on the welfare services were we to cease to apply such tests.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the test discriminates against sponsors who, like his constituent, are making commendable efforts to combine the responsibilities of work with bringing up children. That is not the case. We would not normally object to the settled partner's receiving any assistance to which he or she is entitled in his or her own right; nor, in the short term, would we normally raise any objection to assistance provided by third parties.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for family credit to be discounted when it comes to deciding what constitutes public funds. On 5 February this year, regulations came into force that tightened Department of Social Security procedures to ensure that ineligible persons from abroad were excluded from receiving certain non-contributory benefits, including family credit. Our intention is that those who are in the United Kingdom either illegally or on a temporary basis—including spouses who are admitted for an initial probationary period of 12 months—should not receive benefit intended for those who are settled here and genuinely entitled to it.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kirkhope: I want to deal with a point that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier, and I have not much time in which to do so.
The curbs are intended not only to strengthen immigration controls, but to save taxpayers' money and greatly reduce the incentive for people to enter the country illegally. The key question, therefore, is whether additional recourse to public funds would be necessary as a result of the applicant's arrival here. The fact that a sponsor may not be claiming public funds at the time of the application is not in itself evidence that the couple have adequate resources to satisfy the requirements of the rules. The couple would need to provide evidence that the foreign partner would not, in the long term, need to claim public funds in his or her own right.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the definition of "long term", suggesting that we might have changed it. We have not, but the definition depends very much on the circumstances involved in individual cases. Adjudicators examine such cases and determine what would constitute a long-term or short-term position in those cases, but nothing is defined in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggested. Certainly, no case law is available to benefit either him or me.

Mr. Madden: This is an important point. Does the Minister agree that, if Mr. Hussain were allowed to enter the country, he would not be eligible to claim family credit until he had been granted indefinite leave to remain, which would be at least 18 months after his entry? Will the Minister provide adjudicators with guidance on the definition of "long term"? Mr. Molloy was clearly unaware of what the Minister has told us, and I suspect that many other adjudicators are as well.

Mr. Kirkhope: I cannot discuss Mr. Molloy's views, nor do I wish to; but I can say that adjudicators are well aware of the need to define "long term", and do so on the basis of individual circumstances. That has been the case in this instance as in others.
Practical experience confirms that the tests are not too difficult to pass. The figures for migration from the sub-continent show that entry clearance was granted to 8,610 spouses, whereas 1,160 were refused solely because there was insufficient maintenance and accommodation.
I repeat that the sponsor's position deserves some sympathy, but I cannot believe that either she or her husband was entirely ignorant of the requirements of the immigration rules when they entered into the marriage. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is my responsibility to maintain a fair and firm policy on immigration control. The majority of spouses applying for entry clearance to join persons settled in the United Kingdom are able to satisfy the requirements of the immigration rules.
Having said all that, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken careful note of what he has said. Despite my remarks, I shall of course consider the matter in the light of what he has told me: that is a courtesy to which he is entitled, and one that I am pleased to exercise. I shall come back to him in due course.

It being three minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Training Objectives

. Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils to discuss the Government's objectives on training issues; and if she will make a statement. [14662]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): I regularly meet training and enterprise council representatives to discuss a wide range of topics, including the Government's objectives on training.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister consider extending the coal funding for training and enterprise councils beyond March this year? That funding was introduced to help train redundant mineworkers and other workers in coal areas where pits have closed. Less than a quarter of the work force in Wakefield has academic or professional qualifications. Cuts in vocational training services to help people into the next century will be devastating to Wakefield. Will the Minister ensure that there will be no cuts in training provision for Wakefield because the redundant mineworkers, the unemployed and the young will suffer more? Will he assure me that training programmes to help people obtain professional and academic qualifications will continue?

Mr. Paice: Officials in the regional office are currently in discussion with Wakefield training and enterprise council, as they are with all TECs throughout the country, about its contract for next year. Those discussions will take into account the unemployment situation and the perceived needs of every TEC. I therefore cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the budget for Wakefield TEC will be next year because it has not yet been resolved.
There is no overall reduction in the amount of money being made available to TECs this year compared with what we expect them to spend. We have increased their overall resources and made more available for modern apprenticeships, for example. Negotiations are continuing and I shall make sure that regional officers are aware of the situation in Wakefield which, as we understand, reflects the decline of the coal industry.

Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed by training and enterprise councils about the bureaucratic burdens that are imposed on them? Has he had an opportunity to examine the report of the Employment Select Committee on the work of TECs and, in particular, the evidence that individuals on training for work schemes have to complete no fewer than 31 separate forms and that training providers calculate that 40p out of every £1 allocated for training is eaten up by administration costs? Can the Minister explain how, at a time of training cuts, the Government are spending more on bureaucrats and administrators rather than providing for the training and skills needs of our people and our country?

Mr. Paice: We had to wait for the soundbite at the end of that question. In reality, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), there are no cuts overall in training budgets this year. We are increasing TEC budgets by 5 per cent., which is considerably ahead of inflation this year. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the administration of training programmes is predominantly the responsibility of individual TECs, and we are pressing them to reduce the burden that they put on providers.
I have had a chance to study the Select Committee report briefly. Clearly, we shall examine the recommendations in considerable detail and respond to them in due course. That is the correct approach. My immediate reaction was basically that the report is extremely good in its attitude to training and enterprise councils and I welcome many of the Committee's supportive remarks. I emphasise that we are very much aware of the need to reduce bureaucracy for TECs. We are already dealing with that aspect and we shall obviously consider the recommendations in that light.

Mr. Sykes: That was a good answer from the Minister. Does he not think it a bit rich to be taking lectures about bureaucracy from Labour Members, when they voted against the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend makes his point perfectly well. We hear so much about reducing the burdens when the Opposition think that it is someone else's fault, but when they are given the chance to do something about it, as in so many other cases, they are woefully lacking.

Departmental Co-ordination

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations she has had with other Government Departments about co-ordination on employment issues since the abolition of the Employment Department. [14677]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The merged Department for Education and Employment discusses employment issues with other Departments where appropriate, not least the policies which have been successful in reducing unemployment in the United Kingdom to one of the lowest levels of any major European country.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that many people take the view that the Government's abolition of the Department of Employment—and with it the Select Committee on Employment, which will not now be in a position to consider the Government's response on training and enterprise councils—has something to do with trying to take the spotlight off employment issues and the existing level of unemployment, which is still well over 3 million in real terms? [Interruption.] They can wait until they get the next report from the Select Committee. Will the Secretary of State, who took a great interest in employment issues in her previous incarnation and was sometimes even constructive about them, at least admit that the five Departments among which the issues have been spread should meet to discuss them and try to formulate some policy on them?

Mrs. Shephard: There are many regular contacts between relevant Departments—Trade and Industry, Social Security, Environment and the Treasury—and the Central Statistical Office, at both official and ministerial level. It is disappointing that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not only continue to peddle very curious unemployment statistics, but insist that what matters to unemployed people are the Whitehall committees which exist to examine their plight. I should have thought that what mattered was the rate of reduction in unemployment. It is truly extraordinary for the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has close links with employment activities both within and outside the House, to focus on the machinery of government and not on the fact that, on a claimant count, unemployment fell to 7.9 per cent. last month.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in terms of dealing with unemployment and creating more jobs, having the right macro-economic framework in this country is far more important than the organisational structures of government? Have not the Government been uniquely successful in reducing unemployment? Would that not all be put at risk if they were foolish enough to adopt the minimum wage and the social chapter, as the Labour party advocates?

Mrs. Shephard: The Government have indeed achieved an excellent record in reducing unemployment, and it is the envy of some of our major European competitor economies. As my hon. Friend says, we put that down to the pursuit of strong economic policies, the reduction of inflation and the rejection of a national minimum wage and of the provisions of the social chapter.

Mr. Ian McCartney: The Opposition Front-Bench team is concerned that the new arrangements for the Select Committee will be insufficient to meet the necessity for thorough investigation of the incompetent Ministers across the Floor from us. An example of that must be the announcement that £500,000-worth of equipment has been lost by the right hon. Lady's Department in the past year while the Health and Safety Executive has managed to lose £800,000 worth of equipment in the past three years. Given the cuts in the budget, has there been an inquiry into those losses at the Department, and have the police been involved to try to find out what is going on? It seems that crime is the only growth industry in employment.

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has quoted well from what may turn out to be the silliest press release of the year. With regard to his question about the Health and Safety Executive, I refer him to the Department of the Environment. If the hon. Gentleman is so expert in preventing crime and theft from Departments, he should offer his services to Scotland Yard.

Mr. Riddick: Despite the fact that the Department of Employment has been abolished and merged with the Department for Education, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the British people are fully aware of the fact that unemployment in France is 3 million and increasing and unemployment in Germany is 4 million and increasing, while this country compares favourably with unemployment at 2.2 million and decreasing?

Mrs. Shephard: The Government have a strong record on employment and unemployment, particularly when compared with that of some of our European neighbours. For that reason, the Government have produced a booklet—which they have helpfully sent to all hon. Members—dispelling some of the myths that Labour Members try to convey. Our employment and unemployment records have been widely praised by other major European economies. For that reason, we have had the booklet translated into French and German the better to convey our message.

Private Schools (Inspections)

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to review the inspection arrangements for private schools. [14678]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): The arrangements for the Office for Standards in Education's registration inspection of independent schools are working well, and we have no plans to change them.

Dr. Wright: Has the Minister had a chance to see the recent report showing the unsatisfactory nature of the inspection arrangements for private schools? Can it be right that there should be such a cosy complicity in the arrangements? Can it be right that a school which would be judged a failing school in the public sector will be given a clean bill of health in the private sector? Can it be right that the inspection reports in the private sector are not even published? Is it not time for the Government to ensure that good public sector practices are brought into the private sector to protect unsuspecting parents from being taken for a very expensive ride?

Mr. Squire: I hope that in referring to unsuspecting parents the hon. Gentleman was not referring to one of his hon. Friends. There is a small problem in the hon. Gentleman's question: he referred to the Douse report, which was not on Ofsted/Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools inspections, but on the inspections carried out and the arrangements made by the Independent Schools Joint Council. The Ofsted inspections, to which the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question referred, are just as rigorous for the private sector as for the state sector, and will continue to be so.

Primary School Standards

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to raise standards in primary schools. [14679]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Government have introduced a coherent programme of reforms designed to raise standards in all our schools.

Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the head teacher and the quality of classroom teaching are the keys to improvements in standards? Will she and her ministerial colleagues take the lead in seeking to improve those key determinants and encourage the teaching profession to reflect critically and responsibly on its contribution?

Mrs. Shephard: The chief inspector makes it very clear in his report that the leadership of the head teacher in raising standards of public achievement is the critical factor. For that reason, the Government are devoting a lot of resources to improving the performance of head teachers who are already in post and to the headlamp programme, and it is why we shall be piloting work on a new qualification for head teachers with effect from September.

Ms Estelle Morris: Is it not amazing that the crisis in primary education seems to be everyone's fault but the Minister's? Has it not entered her head that constant changes in the national curriculum and testing, larger class sizes, crumbling buildings, too few resources and low teacher morale might just have something to do with the fact that half our 11-year-olds are under-achieving? Would the Government not make a useful first step towards finding a solution if they accepted that most of their policies were part of the problem?

Mrs. Shephard: It would be a useful first step for the Opposition to have supported all the Government's measures that have been introduced to improve standards. The Opposition have consistently opposed testing and assessment, regular inspections, publication of examination results and the greater involvement of parents. Those are just some of the measures that the Government have introduced to improve standards in schools. It would sit better on Opposition Members if they had supported those measures before making comments such as those that the hon. Lady has just made.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) would have been better received in the House if the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats had not opposed testing when it was introduced by the Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members live in a time warp in which only permissive methods of education hold sway?

Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will make their own judgment about which particular time warp is inhabited by Opposition Members. There is no question but that the processes of inspection and testing contribute to the improvement in standards in schools, and we set great store by them.

Higher Education Tuition Fees

Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding top-up tuition fees for higher education in the 1997–98 academic year. [14680]

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): We have had representations from students, parents and others with a direct interest in higher education, expressing concern at the proposal of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to introduce top-up entrance fees. The Government share that concern and see no need for universities or colleges to impose such fees.

Ms Corston: Does the Minister accept that while a fundamental review of the funding of higher education is welcome and overdue, action must be taken now to deal with the funding crisis which has caused universities even to consider top-up tuition fees? Is he aware that the vice-chancellor of Bristol university has said that this year's 7 per cent. real terms cut, coming on top of cuts of 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. per year every year for the past 15 years, is doing irreversible damage and is irresponsible because the quality of education cannot be maintained?

Mr. Forth: Vice-chancellors are free to give their judgment at any given time, and I have heard similar quotations from other vice-chancellors from time to time. That has occurred against the background of our investing an enormous amount of money in higher education, which represents a large proportion of the total educational spend in this country.
I hope that no vice-chancellor is suggesting that the quality of education at his university is anything less than ideal or the maximum. If that were so, that vice-chancellor and his colleagues would have a lot of questions to answer when their position was set against the background of the amount of public money that they receive and the work that they do at their institutions. I therefore hope that we can put that matter to one side.
I pay tribute to Bristol university and other universities which have done excellent work to achieve productivity and efficiency gains over a period of years. We expect them to continue to do so.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that some universities run themselves much better than others, and that some pay their way while others just bleat and moan? I am happy to say that Lancaster university has always paid its way. Its standing is so high that it has raised no less than £10 million in a bond on the financial market, allowing it to build new buildings for undergraduates and graduates and to peg rents. Why cannot other universities follow that example?

Mr. Forth: As always, my hon. Friend makes a pertinent and penetrating point. Among our higher education institutions are many which do excellent work, manage themselves efficiently and effectively and deliver the highest quality of education, while others may not carry out such excellent work. If institutions were to share information with one another and adopt best practice, many of them would achieve better results with the money that they already have.

Mr. Don Foster: Further to the response that the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), will he answer her question? Can he confirm that the setting up of the Dearing inquiry in no way absolves him from taking action now to resolve some of the serious problems in higher education, not least in relation to capital funding? Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the private finance panel has said that the private finance initiative is ill suited to many non-commercial academic projects? As PFI will not be suitable to solve those problems, what action will the Minister take now—or will he use the Dearing inquiry as an excuse for a complete cop-out?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in close touch with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom and with those responsible for making progress with the private finance initiative to discover exactly how it can meet the needs of higher education, where there may be difficulties and how those difficulties may be resolved. There is no sense in which the Secretary of State and I are not listening to what the CVCP has to say; we are doing so and we shall continue to do so. We are working hard to ensure that the private finance initiative can work as effectively as possible in higher and further education, as it has done in the past, and we expect it to work more effectively in future.

Mr. Bill Walker: In considering education, fees and expenditure, will my hon. Friend condemn the action of the students of Stirling university, who have invited Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein to Stirling? Following the bombings in London, is that not at best insensitive and at worst stupid?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises a difficult issue. The tradition of free speech on our campuses probably overrides any other concern, and I have always said that all students should be able and free to listen to all points of view that are offered to them, no matter how unpopular or unpalatable, and make up their own minds. Although I well understand my hon. Friend's concern, on balance I would stand firmly on the principle of freedom of speech and the ability of students to make up their own minds about what they hear rather than any suggestion of discouraging or, even worse, banning any individual point of view.

Mr. Steinberg: Does the Minister agree that if the universities introduced a top-up charge, it would be the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of student debt? Does he also agree that students find it extremely difficult to manage at university, that many are suffering tremendous financial hardship, and that such a charge would be a further burden on them? Does the Minister further agree that we are reaching a stage when only well-off families are able to send their children to university?

Mr. Forth: I do not agree with the premise of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do agree with him that the registration fee proposal recently floated by the CVCP would, if implemented in what I understand to be the suggested form, bear most heavily on middle and lower middle-income families, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is one of the many reasons why the Government completely oppose the suggestion and hope that it will not be implemented by the CVCP.

Drugs Education

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if drugs education is taught as a part of the national curriculum. [14681]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): Drugs education is a statutory requirement of the national curriculum for pupils aged five to 16.

Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent and pioneering work being carried out in East Sussex on drugs education? Despite disappointment at the recent unsuccessful bid for further grant for education supported training funding, is it not excellent news that a charitable trust may be interested in providing financial backing for those efforts?

Mrs. Gillan: I am delighted to hear of the interest in the drugs prevention initiative to which my hon. Friend refers. I take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend, who organised a seminar in his constituency on drugs and brought together head teachers, the police, the health authority and education agencies to consider the issue of drugs and young people. He is well known for his determination to combat drugs, as are the Government.

Mr. Alan Howarth: While acknowledging the pressures on the curriculum and the imperative not to compromise the commitment to improve academic standards, may I suggest to the Minister that the Government have not ensured that personal and social education receives the attention that it should and that the national curriculum inadequately addresses the need to educate young people to be responsible towards themselves and towards others, not least in relation to drugs?

Mrs. Gillan: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Drugs education in the school curriculum is covered at key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Government's strategy on drugs, starting with the White Paper entitled "Tackling Drugs Together", is followed by GEST funding of nearly £6 million, which is made available to train teachers with responsibility for drugs education and to provide support to innovative drugs education projects. In addition, last May we issued a circular on drugs prevention in schools. The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with the two guidance documents from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, entitled "Drug Education: Curriculum Guidance for Schools" and "Digest of Drug Education Resources for Schools". The Government are firmly committed to stamping out drugs misuse by young people.

Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware how much parents, teachers and governors have welcomed the new measures to tackle drugs misuse in schools, particularly the new role of drugs education co-ordinators in all secondary schools? Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, spurred on by those initiatives, we have appointed a substance misuse training officer who will help to maximise schools' efforts to combat the drugs menace?

Mrs. Gillan: I am delighted to hear that news. My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that the Ofsted framework now includes specific reference to drugs education. As part of the regular four-yearly cycle of school inspections, Ofsted will look at schools' drugs education programmes and policies.

Employment Policy Priorities

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on her priorities in respect of her employment policies. [14682]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My priorities are to continue with the policies which have reduced unemployment by three quarters of a million since December 1992 to one of the lowest rates of any major European country.

Mr. Smith: Would the Secretary of State care to comment on statistics that I have received from the Library which show that, since the Government came to power in May 1979, 500 million working days have been lost in Wales through unemployment? The figure for the United Kingdom is 9,400 million days. Will the Minister comment on the effect that that has had on the economy and on those individuals and families whose lives have been destroyed by unemployment?

Mrs. Shephard: Certainly. It is clear that unemployment is very distressing for individuals and families. That is why I hoped that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on both sides of the House would be as enthusiastic as the Government about our record in pushing down and beating unemployment, which is better than that of many of our major European partners.

Sir Ralph Howell: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the success of the workstart scheme, which she initiated as Secretary of State for Employment? Why have the Government never claimed the credit for the money saved under that scheme, as I believe that we have saved at least £40 per week for every person who participated in the workstart pilot scheme?

Mrs. Shephard: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a valuable contribution. Workstart was a very useful pilot scheme. It worked well, and the fact that it also saved money should be built into our appraisal of it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be just as enthusiastic about the project work pilots due to begin in Medway and the Hull area after Easter.

Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State comment on the findings of the Select Committee report on training and enterprise councils which was published today? It points to evidence that some providers are spending 40p on administration out of every £1 meant to be used for training because the systems are so complex and bureaucratic. How do the Government intend to simplify those systems so as to ensure that the money allocated by Parliament for training is used for that purpose?

Mrs. Shephard: I was under the impression that, in answer to Question 1, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), had explained in some detail what the Government are planning to do. We are concerned to reduce bureaucracy in TECs and are working with them in order to do so. I have not yet had a chance to study the Select Committee report on TECs because it has only just been published, but I welcome its strong support for the concept of TECs.

Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that unemployment is now falling steadily in Britain, whereas it is rising in much of Europe, notably in Germany? Will she also confirm that one of the main reasons for those contrasting performances is that we have an opt-out

of the highly burdensome social chapter whereas other countries do not? Does she think that there is any risk of Britain ever adopting those burdensome provisions?

Mrs. Shephard: Certainly not while the Conservative party is in control of the Government. We are absolutely convinced that the combination of the pursuit of sound economic policies, low inflation and not adopting the national minimum wage or the social chapter has resulted in unemployment in Britain now being lower than in many European countries.

Mr. Meacher: How can the Secretary of State boast about her employment policies when Britain now ranks 20th out of 24 OECD countries in terms of job creation since 1979, when civilian employment has fallen since 1979, whereas in Germany, the Netherlands and Australia it has risen by more than 30 per cent., and when unemployment here is still twice as high as it was in 1979 and the only jobs being created are overwhelmingly insecure, short term and part time? When will the Secretary of State admit that the fall in unemployment in the past three years has nothing whatsoever to do with the Government's deregulated labour market and everything to do with the fact that the Government were forced, kicking and screaming, out of the exchange rate mechanism in 1992?

Mrs. Shephard: Opposition Members like to make much of what they call an insecure jobs market dominated by temporary and part-time work. Such a description of our jobs market is nonsense. Socialist Spain, which embraces the social chapter and the national minimum wage—policies that the hon. Gentleman would be keen to adopt—has nearly six times as many people in temporary work as Britain. Opposition Members must learn to strike a balance between employees' rights and the risk of deterring job creation. The hon. Gentleman's recent press release came second as silliest of the year. It not only sought to compare like with unlike, but contained two spelling mistakes and a curious new definition of the OECD. Perhaps that is to be expected from Opposition Front Benchers.

School Inspections (Barnet)

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Barnet schools were recently commended by the chief inspector of schools. [14683]

Mr. Robin Squire: Five Barnet schools were commended in the chief inspector's annual report.

Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the head teachers, pupils, parents and staff of those schools? Does he find it significant that the three secondary schools that were commended were single-sex schools? Does he agree that one of the factors in the great education service in Barnet is the ethos created during 30 years of Conservative control of that borough?

Mr. Squire: First, I willingly join my hon. Friend in congratulating all the schools in Barnet that he has identified. I am sure that he will understand if I extend my congratulations to the other schools identified in the


chief inspector's report and, as it gives but a snapshot of the year, to the many good schools throughout the country that were not identified in the report but, year in, year out, deliver good-quality education through the hard work of teachers.

Primary School Standards

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to improve standards of reading and arithmetic in primary schools. [14684]

Mrs. Gillan: The Government have taken a wide range of measures to raise standards in English and mathematics in primary schools.

Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend is right to point out that a number of measures have been taken. While reminding her that primary education standards in part of my constituency would be enhanced by a successful outcome to discussions—in which I hope to participate—between the diocese, the local education authority and the Department to secure the early replacement of Dulverton first school, may I ask my hon. Friend what the Teacher Training Agency is doing to improve standards of English and arithmetic teaching?

Mrs. Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising on every possible occasion the subject of Dulverton first school, of which he is an assiduous champion. The TTA has not only identified English and mathematics as priorities but commissioned research into the effective teaching of numeracy and literacy. The evidence will be disseminated to teachers.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister agree that one of the most important factors in upgrading and enhancing reading and arithmetic standards in primary schools is the ability to finance special needs auxiliary teachers to help pupils who encounter difficulties with those subjects? Does she further agree that primary schools' present level of resources, and the low morale of their teachers, is having a detrimental effect on the crucial quality standards that we expect?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I cannot agree. We have made available £878 million more for schools in the Budget, including £264 million of grants to help schools to improve their performance. The grant for education support and training allocations for 1996–97 are intended to increase primary teachers' subject knowledge and school effectiveness.

Mr. Dunn: Surely one factor in improving standards is making schools more accountable to the parents and children they serve. Is not it interesting that we continue to champion the cause of parental information against the representatives of vested interests on the Opposition Benches?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is as familiar as I am with the fact that Labour Members always vote against anything intended to progress the education of young people. Ofsted has announced that it is to investigate mathematics teaching in primary and secondary schools,

including standards, levels of achievement in numbers, teaching approaches and the extent to which teaching and courses prepare pupils for each stage of their education and for employment. The advances that we are making in education are improving opportunities for all pupils throughout the country.

Mr. Blunkett: Is that why the Government cut £14 million from the reading recovery scheme, pushed up class sizes and have over the past 17 years overseen a clear deterioration in the way that primary school teachers can do their job—as exemplified by test and Ofsted results? Is not it a fact, to use Scottian language, that the Government have designedly led the public to believe—or, in normal language, have deliberately misled the public to believe—that they have put £878 million into the budget for the coming year, when the actual grant is 1.2 per cent. only? The Government know that the standard spending assessment does not equal grant, and they are deliberately trying to delude the British people into thinking that they care about education when they do not.

Mrs. Gillan: That is pretty rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. We provided funding for a pilot project to assess the value of reading recovery, which is now over. We have disseminated the results, and it is now up to schools and LEAs to decide whether they want to include reading recovery in their plans. A number of them have done so within their own resources, in some cases supported by funds from the single regeneration budget. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that it is not the Government's job to dictate teaching methods to schools and LEAs, or to tell them how to use their budgets.

Post-16 Education

Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of 16-year-olds stay in full-time education; and what was the figure 10 years ago. [14685]

Mr. Paice: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that 71.5 per cent. of 16-year-olds were in full-time education in 1994–95. This compares with 47.3 per cent. in 1985–86.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I welcome that dramatic increase. Given that there has been an even more dramatic increase in the number of young people going into higher education, does my hon. Friend agree that encouraging pupils to stay on for an extra year in school and encouraging even more people to take higher education courses are the best ways of equipping our young people with the skills necessary for the jobs of the future?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is essential that our young people have a range of opportunities to continue learning. That is why the Government introduced general national vocational qualifications—to re-excite young people who have been turned off by conventional education. It is also why we set further education colleges free from the dead hand of local authorities—so that they can go on finding new ways of teaching. It is, moreover, why we introduced the guarantee that no 16 or 17-year-old need stop learning once he has left compulsory education.

Mr. O'Hara: Is it not a bit short-sighted of the Government to congratulate themselves on staying-on


rates at 16? The rates for 17-year-olds and beyond are disastrous. Surely the Government should pay attention to the fact that ours is one of the lowest staying-on rates for 17 and 18-year-olds in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Mr. Paice: The staying-on rate at 16 is excellent, and our higher education numbers are among the best in Europe. The staying-on rates for 17-year-olds are 77 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 86 per cent. in Canada, 82 per cent. in Switzerland and 93 per cent. in Germany. Of course we would like an improvement in the figures for 17 and 18-year-olds. That is why we have challenged FE colleges to increase their recruitment again this year. Growth is continuing. We are also developing modern apprenticeships; more than 20,000 will be in place this year. We hope for 60.000 next year, providing a range of opportunities so that all young people can continue to learn.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the improved staying-on rate for 16-year-olds almost certainly reflects improved examination achievement at that age and at A-level? It is amazing that more than one in three now go into higher education. Does my hon. Friend share my suspicion that the recent test results of younger children understate their achievements? It seems odd that they can under-achieve to the extent that the tests seem to show and yet do so well at 16 and in higher education.

Mr. Paice: I do not intend to second-guess the results of Ofsted's work, or the results of the tests, but my hon. Friend's important point needs examining. Our GCSE results at 16 are improving every year, as is the number going into higher education. That is exceptionally good, and the Government are extremely proud of it—despite the continual bleatings and whingeings of the Labour party.

Primary Schools (Specialist Staff)

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to assist primary schools with the recruitment of specialist staff to assist with the delivery of the national curriculum. [14686]

Mr. Paice: The Government have invested more than £4 million on training specialist teacher assistants during the past two years and we plan to invest a further £3.5 million over the next two years.
Specialist teacher assistants help qualified teachers to give primary pupils a good grounding in the core national curriculum skills of reading, writing and arithmetic.

Mr. Jones: I welcome that amount of support, but does not the Minister believe that the chief inspector's report on primary schools in England showed a significant failure in the delivery of various specialised elements of the national curriculum, especially technical education? Do the Government agree that extra help is needed to bring English primary schools up to a level of which we can all be proud?

Mr. Paice: That is precisely why my right hon. Friend has announced the setting up of literacy and numeracy centres. We have had 87 bids and we are currently considering which ones to accept. I hope that they will be running by the autumn. In addition, the Teacher Training Agency is surveying current training providers to obtain much more detailed information about their provision and to ensure that we are providing primary school teachers, to whom the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention, with the necessary skills.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of an organisation calling itself the Wrist Consortium? That organisation is misleading Lancashire parents into believing that the standards of the national curriculum and general standards in primary schools are not being delivered because of savage cuts in Government funding when, in fact, the Government have provided a 5.5 per cent. increase this year. It is also telling parents that standards are suffering because the county council is being forced to pass on the 5.5 per cent. to schools, which is what it should do anyway.

Mr. Paice: I have not heard of that organisation, but the story that my right hon. Friend describes is familiar to all of us who have heard from him and other colleagues from Lancashire about the abysmal goings-on in Lancashire county council and its education authority. I know that my right hon. Friend will do everything in his power to ensure that the people of Lancashire know how much more money the council has available to spend on education this year and that that money will go to schools and be spent in the classrooms, where it matters.

Higher Education Funding

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the percentage change in planned capital and recurrent funding for higher education between 1995–96 and 1996–97. [14687]

Mr. Forth: Planned capital and recurrent funding for higher education institutions in England will be £4.6 billion in 1996–97, a reduction of 2 per cent. in cash terms from 1995–96.
Universities and colleges are being encouraged to use private finance to fund capital expenditure so as to maximise the value of taxpayers' money.

Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister unaware that slashing the capital budget by 30 per cent. next year and by almost 50 per cent. over the next three years will have the most disastrous effect on universities' ability to provide for their students? Further, is he unaware that capital funds are used for the purchase and maintenance of equipment for teaching and research, which is totally unsuited to provision by the private finance initiative?

Mr. Forth: I am aware that we are asking higher education institutions to explore every possibility for the imaginative use of private finance in place of a complete reliance on the public purse and the Government of the day. That is a healthy development.
As I said in reply to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in close contact with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals,


the Higher Education Funding Council for England and others to assess the impact of the switch to private finance on different institutions and types of education resource. The impact will differ for each organisation and resource. We will consider the way forward in the light of that assessment. Much work is being done in close conjunction with higher education.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend ask Sir Ron Dearing to prepare two reports after his inquiry into higher education? The first, for the Conservative Government, could highlight policies that would bring about choice, excellence, private funding and independence for our universities; the second could contain a rag-bag of tired ideas for the Labour party to use in its manifesto, which will be redundant after the next general election.

Mr. Forth: Tempted though I am by my hon. Friend's seductive suggestion, I would not dream of asking Sir Ron Dearing to waste his time doing anything of the kind. Sir Ron need prepare only one report, because only we will be in government after the next election.

Mr. Bryan Davies: The Minister's answers on higher education today have been all sound and no bite. Will he explain how the cuts that are being made in the capital budget—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said a moment ago, affect equipment also—can possibly be bridged by the private finance initiative, given that institutions are already telling him and the Secretary of State that, at the most, they will be able to get 10 per cent. support for certain capital projects and that the PFI is entirely unsuited to equipment?

Mr. Forth: I do not know whether that is an implied spending commitment by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his party. I do not know, either, whether he has the permission of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to make it. We are aware, of course, that there will be different requirements in different higher education institutions, that different solutions will have to be brought forward and that an imaginative and positive approach will be required by all. As I have said twice already, I think—but I shall repeat myself for the hon. Gentleman's benefit—we are working closely with all concerned to ensure that the switch to private finance, instead of total reliance on the public purse, is successful. As for the hon. Gentleman's accusation that I was unable to produce a soundbite, I regard that as a badge of honour.

Working Conditions

Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next expects to meet her EU counterpart to discuss working conditions. [14688]

Mr. Forth: I expect to meet European Union Employment Ministers at the next meeting of the Social Affairs Council on 29 March. On such occasions, I emphasise to them the importance of taking action to help member states tackle unemployment, rather than working up new and burdensome employment law directives which would damage competitiveness and destroy jobs.

Ms Quin: Will the Minister take time to explain to his European Union counterparts and to the House why so

many of our more successful firms are ignoring Government advice and views on the social chapter and introducing European-style works councils into Britain?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady misses the point. We resisted the blanket imposition of one uniform solution in the private sector throughout the EU. I am relaxed if companies decide to follow a certain course, including the setting up of works councils. That is a matter for companies to decide, and I welcome that. We shall continue to resist the blind desire of some people to impose the same solution on every member state of the EU regardless of its needs. That is the road to ruin.

Sir Donald Thompson: When my hon. Friend visits my constituency again, he will find that working conditions and the amount of work are such that it has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe—5 per cent. Will he talk to employers, first, about the reluctance of ladies in my constituency to work full time—they prefer working part time—and, secondly, about more flexible training for people going into manufacturing industry?

Mr. Forth: It is refreshing to hear someone talk with pride about what is being achieved in his constituency. My hon. Friend reflects the sense of pride and achievement that Conservative Members have in their local communities and in what they are achieving. It is not the terrible, abysmal doom and gloom peddled constantly by Opposition Members, who obviously have no confidence in their local communities or in the country.

Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that, in my constituency, in which I take pride and in which tremendous efforts are being made to regenerate the local economy, a job was recently advertised by the jobcentre at £1.44 an hour? Could the Minister live on that?

Mr. Forth: People are free in a flexible labour market to examine the possibilities. Employers are free to suggest their pay rates and individuals are free to make a judgment about what is an appropriate pay rate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting or implying that we should introduce a statutory minimum wage of the sort that has helped to create a 23 per cent. unemployment rate in Spain, for example.

Dismissal of Teachers

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to make it easier for schools and their governing bodies to dismiss bad teachers. [14689]

Mr. Robin Squire: Schools already have the necessary means to dismiss bad teachers.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that most teachers are excellent? Is he aware, however, that the results of a recent survey revealed that there were 15,000 bad teachers? Does he agree that they were employed by the lot opposite—the Opposition—in the late 1970s by loony left councils and are still a


protected species in those councils? Is my hon. Friend aware that the leader of the lot opposite has sent his son to a grant-maintained school eight miles from Islington, where he lives, and that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) sent her son to a grammar school that involves a one-hour journey from where she lives? Is not this saying, in effect, to the kids of Islington and Peckham, "We say one thing and do another; in other words, get stuffed"?

Mr. Squire: In his typically understated way, my hon. Friend has hit on several excellent points. It is critical that governing bodies across the country should be able—they have the powers—to remove bad teachers. I should stress, in case there is any doubt, that they have those powers. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I noticed only this month, by chance, that Sheffield city council passed a motion in which it condemned the hypocrisy of senior Labour politicians in seeking privileges for their children in contradiction of their own stated education policy. I could not put it better.

Mr. Barry Jones: Why did not the Government make it harder for bad teachers to enter the profession?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman knows enough about education to know how long the average teacher is employed in our schools. On reflection, he will recognise that, despite the steps that the Government have taken to tighten up on the quality of new teachers, we still have in our schools—as the chief inspector makes clear in his independent report—15,000 very bad teachers. However, I must put that in context. We are talking of some 15,000 people in a profession composed of nearly 400,000, and there are many excellent teachers who are doing a very good job. Our concern is to ensure that we minimise, if not eliminate, those who are not.

Better English Campaign

Mr. Butcher: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the aims of her campaign to improve the use of the English language. [14690]

Mr. Paice: The Better English campaign aims to promote the use of good written and spoken English and, in particular, to raise awareness of the importance of good English for people's employment and career prospects.

Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that, such is the ingrained strength of the cult of mediocrity in Labour-controlled local education authorities in our big cities, the sort of initiative he has spoken of may not have the desired effect where it is needed most? May I ask him to write to the BBC sports department to congratulate it on its successful campaign to abolish the adverb, as in, "The boy done great" and, "He did that quick", when no

sentence is ever "finished proper"? May I also ask my hon. Friend to write to the BBC children's television department, whose presenters now seem to be completely incoherent, and ask whether they have grades A to C in GCSE English? If they have such grades, we must urgently re-examine the curriculum and the methods of marking examinations.

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that effective communication is the key to future employment, and that we must do away with communication by grunt. We recognise that no one is beyond redemption. The opportunities for people of all ages to continue their learning and to continue improving their use of English must be open to all—even to people employed by the BBC. I am sure that the Better English campaign, under the chairmanship of Trevor McDonald, might wish to speak to those who run the BBC.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware of how difficult it is to teach good English in large classes, and that any teacher would tell him that, to be successful, one must be able to teach in small groups? Is not it very difficult for any teacher to teach English well in schools when children are frequently taken out of school for long periods and no action is taken against the parents?

Mr. Paice: It must be up to the head teacher and the school governors to initiate that action.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Ofsted has said that there is no simple link between quality of education and class size. It has made it clear that the selection and application of teaching methods and the form of class organisation have a much greater impact on learning than class sizes. We must all understand that lesson. It is entirely up to schools to decide how to organise their teaching and for teachers to organise their classes in a way that ensures that children are able to pay attention and are not being distracted.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in an attempt to add a little colour to the English language, the Post Office recently published stamps bearing the words of Robert Burns? Is he further aware that there were spelling mistakes in those words? Does my hon. Friend agree that that suggests that there should be greater concentration on spelling in English schools?

Mr. Paice: Many of the United Kingdom's great poets and authors have contributed considerably to the development of the English language, and Robbie Burns has contributed no less than many others. I am not sure whether I wish to enter a debate about the spelling of his literature, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government believe that all national treasures, such as Robbie Burns' poems, must have a place in British education to guarantee young people's understanding of British culture in the future.

Points of Order

Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You kindly called me in Question Times in which 15 questions were answered, but just three related to employment matters. Of the total number of questions tabled for oral answer, just 10 out of the 37 related to employment. We all understand that that is the luck of the draw, but since the merger of the Departments of Employment and Education, employment issues such as the labour market have been wiped off the parliamentary agenda. I have written to you about that, Madam Speaker, and I have received a courteous reply from the Secretary of State, but could something be done about it?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own point of order. The answer lies in the number of questions on employment that are tabled by hon. Members. Then, of course, whether a question is selected is down to the luck of the ballot, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I believe that the answer is to table more questions on employment. The hon. Gentleman has the answer in his hands.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I be helpful on this occasion? My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has made a good point. I do not think that we should rely so much on the luck of the draw. It would be better if the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, considered whether it would be possible to introduce some sort of allocation, because it is unfair that we have to rely on pure luck to get an answer to a question that has not met the employment criteria currently required.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. He may wish, as a member of the Procedure Committee, to refer the matter to that Committee. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On the same matter—

Madam Speaker: No, there is no other point on the same matter. We are all sympathetic about it. Let us look at what has been suggested.

Constitutional Change

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for consultation of the people by referendum before the implementation of any constitutional change approved by Parliament.
My Bill seeks to address the public concern that may be expressed if some of constitutional proposals that are currently being discussed within the United Kingdom and the European Union were to be accepted. At the outset, I make it clear that my Bill is not a device to maintain the status quo; nor is it a device to frustrate Parliament.
I sincerely believe that the United Kingdom's constitution and Parliament have served the people of these islands well. In particular, Scotland and the Scottish people have been well served by the constitution and by Parliament. Sometimes that arrangement is called sovereignty—the right to make one's own democratic decisions.
I acknowledge that the constitution's great strength is that it is not cast in stone. In fact, since 1707, it has changed to meet the needs of the times. In other words, it has evolved, and the people have accepted the evolution. Only during the past 20-plus years might change have occurred in some instances by default rather than by consent. That is important, because consent is at the heart of the United Kingdom constitution and it is vital to the way in which we are governed. If Parliament deliberately or inadvertently ignores that, it does so at its peril.
The single-Member constituency is a cornerstone of the discussion. Once elected, the Member represents all the people of that constituency. Another cornerstone is the Member's right to ask questions and to have them answered. That, coupled with parliamentary privilege, means that Members can, through questions, debates or motions, address problems that are brought to them by their constituents, and all of this is free. There is no cost to the constituent. Any change that affects those cornerstones should have the consent of the people. My Bill seeks to ensure that that will happen.
Members of Parliament have the least hold on the constitution during their time in Parliament. They can make changes, which can be reversed the following year or the following month if Parliament so decides. What we cannot do is bind future Parliaments, which is why I said that Members have the least hold on the constitution or sovereignty during their period in Parliament. The freehold of the constitution belongs to the people, so if Parliament wishes to make permanent, constitutional change, it must have the consent of the people. Only the people can give away our grandchildren's inheritance—the constitution of the United Kingdom and Parliament.
Many who propose referendums do so because they see them as a means of obtaining consent before Parliament decides. The main problem with such a proposal is the difficulty in framing the question to be put to the people. Secondly, there is the problem of the complexity of the change and the difficulty that it creates for public debate. My Bill will ensure that any change proposed is fully debated by Parliament, and only after Parliament has decided and a Bill has completed its passage through both Houses will the matter be put to the people. That means a straight yes or no. Do the electors accept or reject Parliament's proposed change?
During the passage of any constitutional Bill, the proposers—probably the Government of the day—will have to tell the millions who voted for them what Members of Parliament will or will not be able to do if their proposal becomes law. They will quite properly have to explain the impact of their proposals on the ability of the House to influence future matters of great importance to the people. Sovereignty or the constitution is not some theoretical abstract matter. It is a living thing that impacts on everyone living in the United Kingdom. It influences tax decisions, spending decisions and unemployment levels, all of which will be argued in Parliament during the passage of any Bill for constitutional change, be it change for devolved assemblies, for example, to Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast, or for European Union federal matters.
I remind the House that my Bill is not a novel proposal. It was tested and tried during the referendum on entry to the European Economic Community. It was used again during the referendum on the Scotland Bill. Consequently, the precedents are there. My Bill ensures that full, frank and open debate on constitutional change is held in Parliament against a background of the knowledge that the proposals, when agreed, will be put to the people in a referendum, thus ensuring that consent will occur before sovereignty or the constitution is changed. Change by default will cease, and the risks of constitutional unrest following unwanted change will have been banished.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. lain Duncan Smith, Mr. William Cash, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Andrew Hargreaves, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Barry Field and Sir George Gardiner.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to provide for consultation of the people by referendum before the implementation of any constitutional change approved by Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Orders of the Day — Asylum and Immigration Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

REGISTRATION OF IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS

'.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person who is not a qualified person within the meaning of this section to undertake for reward (whether by himself or through his servants or agents, or otherwise) the business of giving advice to, making representations on behalf of or acting as the representative of a person in respect of a matter to which subsection (2) of this section applies unless he is registered as an immigration law practitioner with the Immigration Practitioners Registration Authority ("the Authority") established under this section.

(2) This subsection applies to applications to—

(a) an immigration officer, or
(b) the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or
(c) the Department of Education and Employment
made by or on behalf of another person who does not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom for—

(i) leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(ii) asylum in the United Kingdom, or
(iii) revocation of a decision to deport that person from the United Kingdom, or
(iv) a residence permit or document, or
(v)a work permit.

(3) For the purposes of this section, "qualified person" means a person who is—

(a) a lawyer who is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Law Society or Bar Council in respect of any services which relate to a matter to which subsection (2) above applies; or
(b) an employee of an advisory organisation or registered charity approved by the Authority; or
(c) an employee of a qualified person who is registered under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(5) Proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above may be brought only by the Authority.

(6) It shall be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to appoint such person or persons as he considers to be fit and proper to constitute the Authority.

(7) It shall be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to make regulations to give effect to the establishment of the Authority under this section, which may include provisions for—

(a) fees payable for applications for registration;
(b) requirements for registration, including requirements as to—

(i) how the Authority is to be satisfied of the competence of a registered person to act as an immigration practitioner,
(ii) the proper management of the business of a registered practitioner,
(iii) the keeping of records,
(iv) the supervision of employees, and
(v) such other professional standards in the carrying on of a business as are considered necessary;
(c) powers to impose conditions on registration and to cancel registration where there has been a failure to comply with any such conditions;


(d) the giving of written notice of lists of approved organisations, decisions to register, refusals to register and revocations of registration; and
(e) such other matters so as to regulate the procedures to be adopted where the Authority is minded to refuse a registration or revoke a registration.

(8) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House.

(9) Where the Authority has reasonable grounds to suspect that—

(a) the terms of registration have been breached, or
(b) that an offence under subsection (1) above has been committed by a person who is neither a qualified nor a registered person,
it may apply by written information to a circuit judge for a warrant to enter premises occupied by or on behalf of such a person, or other premises specified by the Authority where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that documents or other records will be found belonging to or held by such a person which relate to matters to which subsection (2) above applies.

(10) Any written information made under subsection (9) above must state the grounds for suspicion and the class of documents or records that the Authority consider will be relevant to the discharge of its duties under this section.

(11) Where the Authority has entered premises pursuant to a warrant issued under subsection (9) above it may take possession of any such documents or other material found on the premises as are specified in the warrant; and it may hold such material solely and for so long as is necessary to discharge its duties under this section; and it may not disclose such material to any person other than in the course of discharging its functions under his Act save to the owner of the documents or to such other persons as the owner may have authorised.

(12) There shall be a right of appeal to the High Court against a refusal of registration or the imposition of any condition on registration or the revocation of registration by the Authority; and no revocation of registration shall have effect while any such appeal is pending.

(13) In this section, "to undertake for reward" means to carry out an activity in return for payment to which the person carrying out the activity is entitled, whether by contract or otherwise.'.—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Council for licensed immigration advisers—

'.—(1) There shall be a body to be known as the Council for Licensed Immigration Advisers.

(2) It shall be the general duty of the Council to ensure that the standards of competence and professional conduct among persons who practice as licensed immigration advisers are sufficient to secure adequate protection for their clients, and that immigration advisory services offered by such persons are provided both economically and efficiently.

(3) The Council shall, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, make rules relating to the education and training of those seeking to practise as licensed immigration advisers, and those rules shall, in particular, include provisions prescribing—

(a) the examinations to be taken by such persons, and
(b) requirements as to practical training and experience.

(4) The Council shall issue licences to permit persons to practise as licensed immigration advisers, and shall have power to revoke those licences or to place conditions on those licences.

(5) The Council shall maintain a register of licensed immigration advisers, and shall make it available for inspection by the public.

(6) The Council may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor—

(a) make such charges for the issuing of a licence as may be necessary to cover its administrative costs; and
(b) require applicants for a licence to deposit a bond or other security which may be forfeit in circumstances specified in rules made under subsection (7) below.

(7) The Council shall, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, make and publish rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline for licensed immigration advisers.

(8) In approving rules made under this section, the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining necessary protection for persons seeking advice on immigration and asylum matters without imposing unnecessary burdens on those whose business includes the provision of such advice.

(9) The Council shall have powers of investigation where a breach of its rules by a licensed immigration adviser is suspected, and these powers shall include the power to intervene in a licensed immigration adviser's practice, to inspect the accounts of a licensed immigration adviser, and to require the production of documents by any person involved in the operation of a licensed immigration advisory practice.

(10) The Council may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, make rules—

(a) making provision as to the management and control by licensed immigration advisers of bodies corporate undertaking the provision of immigration advisory services;
(b) prescribing the circumstances in which such bodies may be recognised by the Council as being suitable bodies to undertake the provision of such services; and
(c) regulating the conduct of the affairs of such bodies.

(9) An individual shall not describe himself or hold himself out as a licensed immigration adviser unless he holds a licence in force under this section.

(10) A body corporate shall not describe itself or hold itself out as a recognised body unless it is for the time being recognised under this section.

(11) A person who contravenes subsection (9) or (10) above shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

(12) A person who does not hold a licence in force under this section who offers, or purports to offer, advice to other persons on their rights under the Immigration Act 1971, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 or this Act, in return for payment or other material reward or in the expectation of payment or other material reward, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine or to both.

(13) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations governing the composition, method of appointment, powers, duties and conduct of its proceedings of the Council established under this section; and

(a) the first regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House; and
(b) any subsequent regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Straw: New clause 1 is intended to establish effective regulation of those who give advice on immigration matters, and to end the scandal of unscrupulous advisers who make their living by manufacturing bogus claims for settlement through false applications for asylum, marriage, study and employment.
In nearly every town and city containing large ethnic minority settlements, self-appointed immigration advisers are leeching a living from their clients and, indirectly, from the state. As there is currently no regulation, no one can know the size of the unofficial profit-making immigration advice sector, but I believe that it is large and growing. It is almost certainly among the principal causes of bogus asylum and other immigration claims. In my 17 years as Member of Parliament for Blackburn, which contains a large ethnic minority community, I cannot recall being presented with a bogus immigration case that has not involved an unscrupulous adviser. I am sad to say that, in some instances, that adviser or his or her principal has been legally qualified—a point to which I shall return later.
This is a serious scandal. The first question is whether it can be dealt with other than by statutory regulation. We believe that the answer is no, and I am glad to note from the record of the Committee stage that that view is widely shared on both sides of the House. In Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva)—

Mr. Keith Vaz: Where is he?

Mr. Straw: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not yet arrived. In Committee, he said:
I do not believe that self-regulation will work. It works only when it is applied to genuine and legitimate advisers, who have the qualification to advise properly … Cowboys will not regulate themselves. If they did, they would go out of business. They are not qualified and their modus operandi is to encourage people to prolong the application process by going from one type of application to another. To introduce self-regulation in an area like this is like asking a fraudster who is intent on committing a crime, or a burglar who wants to rob someone's property, to self-regulate himself."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 February 1996; c. 604.]
I entirely agree with that.
The question of the regulation of the immigration advisory sector raises issues of principle similar to those raised by the statutory regulation of the private security industry, which we debated last week.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that when I was involved in the Immigration Advisory Service—which is funded by the Government, as it has been over the past 25 years—I was shocked when clients came, before 1979, and told me that they had been to commercial agencies? Even for a letter to the Home Office on the most simple matter, £25 was charged—and that was before 1979. Does not that, with the examples that he has given, illustrate that it is wrong that such so-called agencies should exist to exploit people, rather as they do on the Indian subcontinent, who know no better and who should be advised to go to the Government-funded agency or to genuine solicitors?

Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's concern and experience and pay tribute to the work that he did with the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the Immigration Advisory Service. I know that his experience is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must speak through the microphone so that he is recorded. He is not being recorded because I cannot hear him myself.

Mr. Straw: Time after time, people come to us late in the day, perhaps when they are about to be deported, who have been ripped off by unauthorised, unregulated groups of so-called immigrant advisers. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) also referred to genuine solicitors because, as I will suggest later, there is a problem with some legally qualified people who operate such practices.
The issue raises matters of principle similar to those raised in last week's debate on the private security industry. I do not want in this debate, any more than in that one, to get involved in an ideological discussion about the role or extent of regulation.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I bet the hon. Gentleman does not.

Mr. Straw: I hear the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), whom I welcome, saying, sotto voce, that she bets that I do not. She will recall that during the debate on the private security industry, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) announced their general subscription to the principle of deregulation but said that it should not apply to the private security industry. I suspect that they would not wish it to apply to immigration advisers either.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton said:
I am as deregulating a Conservative as anyone can be, but there is regulation and regulation: some regulation is necessary and some is not."—[Official Report, 13 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 893. ] 
He went on to explain why regulation of the private security industry was necessary to deal with what he called the crooks who are running that industry.
The same applies to immigration advice. There are crooks, or people indulging in behaviour that is close to criminal, who provide bogus advice for a lot of money. I believe, as I hope that the Minister will acknowledge, that even the Home Office recognises that there is a problem. That is why it initiated discussions two years ago with the group that deals with immigration practitioners and the Law Society. I hope that she will be more forthcoming this afternoon than she was in Committee about what the Government intend to do about what is unquestionably a serious scandal.
If it is accepted that there has to be statutory regulation, the next question is how best it should be achieved. New clause 1 proposes the establishment of an immigration practitioners registration authority, under the supervision not of the Home Office but of the Lord Chancellor. Under our scheme, any person who is not described as a qualified person has to be registered with the authority to practise in the field. If they practise but are not so registered, they will commit a criminal offence. In sub-sections (8), (9) and (10) of new clause 1, power is given to the courts and others to secure the enforcement of the scheme.
Qualified persons who are exempt from the scheme are practising barristers and solicitors or advisory organisations, such as the Immigration Advisory


Service—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North referred—or charities approved by the regulatory authority.
As I have made clear, the Lord Chancellor and not the Home Secretary would be the supervising Minister for the authority. That follows a standard arrangement for similar quasi-judicial bodies. It is better that they should be at arm's length from the Department that deals directly with the policy. The Lord Chancellor's Department has a lot of experience of administering such schemes and there is an exact parallel with the arrangements made for the appointment of adjudicators to immigration appeals tribunals.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, whose name is attached to new clause 7, which is in this group, is not in his place. He moved an equivalent clause in Committee. The purpose of new clause 7 is identical to that of new clause 1, but there are some important practical differences. First, I remind the Minister that our proposal involves a much lighter touch in terms of regulation than that of the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, our proposal excludes directly barristers and solicitors from the scheme of regulation laid down in new clause 1.
The case for excluding practising lawyers is that they are already regulated by their own professional bodies—solicitors are regulated under statute. In making a case for their exclusion from regulation by the authority, it is not our intention that the entire legal profession should be given a clean bill of health from the charge of abuse in this area.
To return to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, I know of solicitors who have taken thousands of pounds from constituents to pursue wholly unwarranted cases, who at the very last minute, when it was far too late, sent the constituent to me to sort out the mess, charging them for a letter merely telling them the address of my advice surgery, and I am sure that that has happened to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Had the constituents come to me in the first instance, nine times out of 10 I would have had to tell them that I was sorry, but they had no right to stay in this country and that it would be in their best interest and that of their families to go back as quickly as possible. In saying so, one would have saved the constituent not only a lot of distress and worry but a large amount of money.
There is abuse of the green form scheme and an abuse whereby solicitors use non-qualified staff to operate unofficial advisory services under the front of a solicitor's firm. Those abuses need to be dealt with firmly by the Law Society and the Legal Aid Board. A full franchising scheme should be introduced for legal aid in such cases, including the use of the green form, so that publicly funded legal advice would be available only from franchised solicitors. Many solicitors from whom I have received letters not only abuse the system but show a surprising ignorance of immigration law and practice. A franchising system would sort that out. There has to be far more effective regulation by the Law Society of such solicitors' branch offices, which masquerade as such but are little different in character from the bogus, non-qualified consultancies.
New clause 1 is a sensible and practical proposal which would tackle abuse of the immigration rules, and asylum abuse in particular, at its root. We hope that it commends itself to the House.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sorry, but I did not realise that he was coming to the end of his speech. He has made a number of important points and I think that he will agree that the issue is not only whether people charge for fairly trivial services, but whether they are competent to advise in the first place. Can he help me to understand his proposal? Obviously, with lawyers there is a test of competence because they have all passed examinations and gained qualifications. What is a practitioner of immigration advice going to have to do to persuade anyone—regulatory or otherwise—that he or she is competent?

Mr. Straw: The Minister has made a generous assumption that lawyers who pass legal exams are qualified to advise on immigration law. For example, as a young barrister, the two areas in which I immediately practised were landlord and tenant law and family law—two areas in which I had never passed an exam. That is true of a great many young lawyers. Therefore, no assumptions should be made because people are formally qualified as solicitors or barristers or that, by virtue of that fact, they know anything at all, particularly about immigration law. I am unaware of Law Society or Bar Council exams that make compulsory a paper in immigration law. That is why there should be a franchising arrangement by the Law Society so that public funds are available only where people are properly qualified in this area.
The Minister asked me how the authority could be satisfied that other people in this area are competent. There would have to be a test of competence—there is no other way out of that. Some people gain competence as a result of long practice. For example, people who work in the Immigration Advisory Service, in the Refugee Legal Centre and in well-known and accepted charities may not be legally qualified but they may have built up immense expertise over the years. It would be easy for the authority that we propose to give such people a practising certificate. The authority that we propose may agree to a scheme with those accepted charities. There would have to be a system of qualification for other people, and I do not resile from that conclusion.

Mr. David Alton: I support new clause 1. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) is not present in the House. In Committee he put forward a fundamentally good idea, which has given rise to this debate. However, I believe that his new clause 7 creates conflicts, complications and contradictions. The hon. Member for Blackburn is right: new clause 1 has a lighter regulatory touch and, therefore, should commend itself to the House.
Hon. Members will have dealt with immigration cases over the years and will have horror stories to tell, so I do not think it is necessary to detail such cases. All hon. Members are aware that bogus and fraudulent advisers have taken money from people and abused their position. The issue is not so much about qualifications and passing exams, but more about the bona fides of the people who are involved in this work.
New clause 1 is a good stab at trying to deal with this problem. It is illustrative of one of the difficulties that arose during Second Reading and Committee stage. These are sensitive questions, they are often controversial and


they often raise highly charged issues. In my view, they are questions that are far better settled as a result of consensus and as a result of hon. Members trying to come to a commonly agreed conclusion.
We have missed a unique opportunity to use the special procedures that can be used when debating bills by not having the chance to call witnesses and to draw evidence and to go into that in some detail in Committee. If we had done that, we would have incorporated the sort of ideas put forward in Committee without any controversy whatsoever—instead, it was turned into yet another football. It is a classic example of legislation that should have been examined coolly, calmly and dispassionately. If it had been, new clauses such as these would have presented themselves, would have been scrutinised and would have been incorporated without controversy.
New clause 1 creates a registration system and a new authority under the supervision of the Lord Chancellor. This is long overdue. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the judgment given by Mr. Justice Stephen Sedley in the High Court in ex parte motion Miranda on 31 March 1995. He said:
It would be of advantage to everybody who gets involved in these cases in this court if one day there were some such control over those who are able to give advice, in order to attempt to ensure that the sort of problem that this court is looking at does not continue to occur.
That day has arrived and we have the opportunity in the context of the legislation to do something about the issue that Mr. Justice Stephen Sedley highlighted in the High Court.
4 pm
It is absurd to suggest that it is impossible to legislate on the subject. We can look at overseas examples to see how we could proceed. Australia set up a migration agents registration service in 1992. It has three specific objectives, most of which are incorporated in new clause 1. It was successfully operated in Australia and its three objectives were: to deter professional misconduct by people working as migration agents and immigration advisers; secondly, to improve the standards of professional conduct and quality of service in the industry; thirdly, to provide a way of dealing with complaints against a particular agent. The Australian service highlighted those objectives—dealing with bona fides, setting up a regulatory authority and monitoring the work of people engaged in giving advice to immigrants. The Australians have successfully operated that system.
In this country, the Law Society has a view on the subject. Karen Mackay, who is the secretary of the immigration law sub-committee, says that the society has been concerned for a number of years about the problem of bogus immigration advisers. She said:
We believe that the Government needs to take action to regulate the activities of fraudulent advisers who prey on vulnerable immigration clients. The Society has discussed this issue with the Home Office, and has pointed out that we have powers only to regulate solicitors, and can do nothing to regulate non solicitor advisers.
The new clauses address the issue head on and are worthy of support.
Lack of control, and the cost of bogus applications and appeals for legal aid on judicial review, lead to enormous costs, which often have to be met by the taxpayer. The new clause should commend itself to the House on the ground of obtaining value for money. In addition, the existence of frightened asylum seekers means that justice requires that such measures should be taken. Many immigrants, frightened at the possibility of having to return to a country where persecution and human rights abuses are rife, will inevitably do all in their power to avoid deportation. To obtain what they assume to be good advice, they will go to anyone who says that he or she is an expert. Many of them will part with their meagre life savings to protect themselves and their families. The persecuted then become doubly exploited as they are ripped off by fraudsters and tricksters, some of whom have no qualifications and, even worse, some of whom have extremely tarnished track records.
The new clause tackles such problems. It ensures that the sort of protection that is already available for registered conveyors is also available for immigrants. The new clause will ensure that bad advice that is given as a result of lack of control will no longer be given.
On that basis, I hope that the new clauses commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Winnick: I must first apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House. As well as an important meeting with the Select Committee on Procedure, I also have an appointment on parliamentary business. I hope that you, Madam Speaker, other occupants of the Chair and the two Front-Bench teams will accept my apologies if I am not present for the winding-up speeches.
The new clause is important. It is strange that such regulations have not been introduced before, as they have been needed for a long time. Often, people seeking advice are unfamiliar with any form of legal practice. They are encouraged by agencies such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to make applications that in many cases serve no purpose.
A genuine agency such as the Immigration Advisory Service, or a solicitor or a Member of Parliament, would explain why, in many cases, an application would serve no purpose. Let us take the examples of someone who is in the country genuinely as a visitor and wants to extend his stay, or someone who wants to extend the stay of a close relative who is in the country on a temporary basis. I am sure that I speak for most hon. Members when I say that, when approached by a constituent, a Member of Parliament would explain that an application may be made for an extension but that, regardless of whether that is granted, it may be taken into consideration if the person wants to visit the United Kingdom again. We would explain the options, as would a genuine solicitor or the Immigration Advisory Service.
A commercial organisation, which has no other purpose than to make as much money as possible, would not explain that. It would simply say, "We shall write a letter on your behalf to the Home Office," without explaining some of the disadvantages. From its commercial point of view, there is no reason why it should do so. In so doing, it can cause many difficulties.
Let us suppose that an appeal has gone to an adjudicator and the adjudicator has decided, on hearing oral evidence. to turn that appeal down. There is a further appeal, but


only on points of law to the immigration appeal tribunal. Anyone who is familiar with immigration law knows that there are rarely sufficient points of law to take the appeal further. We would advise that there is no purpose in appealing and that it would be pointless to appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal.
Many organisations, however, which are only in the business of making money and have no genuine concern for people's plight, give different advice. They say, "We shall lodge an appeal on your behalf," and name a sum—not always, but often, exorbitant—and the person knows no better. He believes that it is perfectly in order. It is legally in order, but no purpose is served.
An important distinction should be made in immigration law—and no doubt in other parts of law—between sound advice, based on experience, and the type of advice that is often bad and counter-productive. That is why it is necessary to consider closely the organisation that sets itself up and states on a plaque outside the door, "We will write to the Home Office on any matter concerning immigration, passport applications, extending visitors' stay" and so on. The sums involved are exorbitant.

Mr. James Couchman: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an idea of the fees charged in those instances by people masquerading as advisers? Does he have any proof of those fees, or is what he says based on anecdote?

Mr. Winnick: Not entirely. If the hon. Gentleman had been present earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn spoke, he would have heard me say that when I was involved in a genuine agency funded by the Government, we were told by some clients that a letter to the Home Office would cost £25. That was before 1979; there has been a fair amount of inflation since then. That was the charge to make a simple request of the Home Office—nothing complicated. No doubt, some agencies charged more even then.
Some of those organisations—if they can be described as such—are only in the business of making as much profit as possible and are not concerned with giving genuine advice. In all fairness, some are genuine, but others would charge as much as possible. That is why they are linked with some agents who operate on the Indian sub-continent. Hon. Members who have heard stories from constituents about relatives or close friends who have received advice from agents on the Indian sub-continent—many of whom operate outside immigration offices in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan—will know that they give bad advice. Those agents are notorious, as are those operating in the United Kingdom—although perhaps not to the same extent.
Some agencies have names that are similar to that of the genuine agency—the Immigration Advisory Service—which has been referred to on several occasions. Such agencies tend to give the impression that they are an official agency. They will not admit to that device and, if pressed, I am sure that they would deny it. Nevertheless, they give the impression that they have much the same powers as the official Government-funded agency. That is extremely regrettable.
I find it difficult to understand why the Government should resist new clause 1. Any exploitation is undesirable, and more so when people, who are unfamiliar

with our law and practices, are ripped off in the way described. There is a strong case for accepting new clause 1. There are some complications, but when the Minister pressed my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn about how one would decide who is a properly qualified agent, my hon. Friend replied accordingly. I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that certain complications must be resolved; it is not easy to decide who should or should not be qualified.
If the Government accept the new clause—it will be interesting to see the attitude adopted by the Minister in replying to the debate—at least there will be some form of much-needed protection in law. Such protection was needed before 1979 and it is even more important now. People are being exploited in a disgraceful manner, so I hope that the amendment will be accepted. If those responsible for drafting legislation believe that there are weaknesses in the wording of new clause 1, I am sure that those weaknesses will be rectified accordingly.

Mr. Couchman: I should like to press the Opposition on the point that my hon. Friend the Minister made about new clause 1 during her brief intervention. It seems to me that a parallel has been drawn with licensed conveyancers. The conveyancing of property is a well-recognised part of the law and is undertaken by all solicitors. The process of conveyancing is well known: certain things must and must not be done. Therefore, we can set an industry standard.
I should like to know precisely what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has in mind when he suggests that agents should have some form of qualification. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to see the agency racket scotched once and for all: we could certainly do without those who are at present profiting from racketeering in that business.

Mr. Straw: I do not think that we need to make heavy weather of the issue. Someone could be identified as being qualified through a mixture of accreditation and formal qualifications. I said in answer to the Minister that, as in the case of existing well-established charities which operate in London and elsewhere, it would be quite straightforward to introduce an accreditation system. If necessary, it could be organised by an outside body which would accredit those people. Perhaps some commercial organisations of good standing could accredit long-established practitioners. As to new entrants, I accept that there should be a qualification system which could be run by one of the well-known accrediting bodies. I shall anticipate the hon. Gentleman and raise the issue of money: it seems to me that such a scheme would have to be self-regulating because it is in the interests of those who are seeking accreditation.

Mr. Couchman: The new clause mentions giving such advice for reward. Presumably, registered charities do not charge for their services. When those seeking my help in immigration cases approach my advice bureaux, frequently they are accompanied by a member of the local mosque or other religious organisation, who acts as their interpreter and advocate. What would be the position of such a person? One does not know whether money changes hands in those cases. Presumably, a small donation is made to the religious organisation. I have no way of knowing that. Would those people automatically find accreditation? They are certainly not experts.
Finally, I am worried by the automatic assumption that any practising lawyer should be considered an expert in these matters. On several occasions, I regaled the Committee with the case of an Albanian who, as a last resort, was advised to try to stay here by applying for political asylum. He had been advised by a Greek friend, but his solicitor accepted instructions and made the application. Although that application for asylum has now been withdrawn, it was manifestly bogus and it seemed to me that the solicitor should not have been prepared to take instructions that were obviously outside our laws on asylum. I would be interested to hear the view of the hon. Member for Blackburn on that point.

Mr. Vaz: I shall not repeat what other Members have said, but I should like to raise three new points that are important to the new clause. I fully associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As he has been in the House much longer than I have, he will know that, during the passage of every immigration Bill, Members have drawn attention to racketeering immigration advisers. We should have the opportunity to deal with the issue once and for all.
It should be remembered that the increase in immigration advisers in the past few years is a direct result of Government policy. The complicated legislation that has been introduced and the fact that the political atmosphere surrounding every immigration Bill has created fear has led many people to seek advice, and they are ripped off in the process. I cannot think of a single political asylum case that I have dealt with in the past nine years in which the person who comes to me has not consulted an immigration adviser. Frankly, such advisers usually cock the matter up, and nothing can be done to address the case properly.
People come to see Members of Parliament. We write to Ministers who write back, not to excuse the actions of the person who came to see us, but to blame the immigration adviser. That does not prevent Ministers from making catastrophic decisions in regard to our constituents.
I shall give the House one current example. Mr. Sumra and his wife Mrs. Kasan, who live in my constituency, have been in the country since 1991. They are waiting at their home for an immigration officer to call and remove them from the country. We have had lengthy correspondence with Ministers and the last letter I received was dated 26 October 1994. Mr. Sumra and his wife have four children and their last child was born three months ago. That child was born here and should be regarded as British; however, they are being told that they have to go. Their case became complicated because they initially consulted immigration advisers, who gave them the wrong advice and ensured that they made the wrong applications and, as a result, four years later, they are now at risk. We must resolve such terrible situations.
I refer the House to the role of Ministers in cases raised by hon. Members, because it is important to regulate the activities of immigration advisers. I have been writing to Ministers since I first entered the House, and I have always enjoyed a decent relationship with Immigration Ministers—despite the fact that they always say no when I write asking them to act beneficially on behalf of my

constituents. That was the case until I received a letter dated 8 February from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, telling me of a change in the practice of informing Members of Parliament about the progress of immigration cases. Ministers are no longer obliged to inform us of the outcome of cases such as those that may have come to us via immigration advisers. Instead, a case goes to the immigration and nationality department, which informs the constituent. Then it is up to the constituent to inform the Member of Parliament. It is exactly at that point that constituents go to see immigration advisers.
I hold two surgeries once a fortnight. One cannot deal with immigration or deportation cases over a pager or mobile phone. At some stage, one must see the constituent, for example to discuss an urgent letter from the IND. If Ministers renege on their responsibility to the House, to inform hon. Members of the progress of cases, that will create even more serious considerations. More of our constituents will be forced to approach advisers and pay enormous amounts of money to obtain information that they ought to get free of charge from their Members of Parliament. It costs us nothing to write to the Minister for a response, whereas the public are charged £25 or more by an immigration adviser.
The case to which I referred came to me via an immigration consultant, three firms of solicitors, then a fourth firm of solicitors in Leicester, which was acting perfectly properly in urging me to telephone Castle Donington, which in turn urged me to contact the Minister's private office. When I did so, I could not talk to the hon. Gentleman because he was in the House. The complications are made worse by the Government's actions.

Mr. Max Madden: The change to which my hon. Friend referred was made about 12 months ago, when Ministers said that they would no longer undertake to inform hon. Members of the outcome of applications. Does my hon. Friend agree that a major safeguard against abuse would be the simple practice of the Home Office copying all correspondence not only to the applicant's representative but directly to the applicant? That would be the simplest way of overcoming the problems that we are discussing.

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The matter is further complicated for constituents who do not read or speak English. The Minister dealt recently with the case of a lady who arrived in this country four years ago and married a British citizen. The marriage broke down and the couple divorced. Subsequently, she fell in love with and married another British citizen, and they have a child aged six months. That lady still does not speak or read English, and the IND continues to communicate directly with her. We must make sure that the department acts in a consumer-friendly and proper way. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn is raising that matter with the Home Secretary on my behalf and that of other hon. Members.
There would be no need for immigration advisers if the IND were much more responsive to the needs of our constituents and was prepared to advise them on the law. People should be told the facts about changes in legislation. Instead, rather unhelpfully, when constituents ring up they are told by the IND to go to see a legal


adviser or, foolishly, they are referred to Members of Parliament like me, who then chastise them for so doing. The IND should give helpful advice and facts about the law to everyone who needs them.
I am worried about the number of former immigration officers who set up in practice as immigration counsellors and advisers. They obviously know what is happening in the Home Office because they used to work in it. They know the personnel there. I recently saw a huge advertisement in the tube—it is so big that it appears that my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and for Blackburn have seen it too—which looked for all the world like an official notice from the immigration department. People would naturally think that it came from the IND—indeed, it even includes that name somewhere under the heading in italics.
What guidelines are there to ensure that former Home Office immigration officers who become advisers follow certain procedures? It might be useless asking the Government to do anything about this, given that Ministers on leaving their posts go off to become directors of companies that they have privatised, but I must ask the Government about the guidance. People should not be allowed to hold themselves up as experts merely on the basis that they used to work for the Home Office.
I support the new clause. I hope that the Minister will recognise the issue as a genuine one that has come up often before, and that the right action will be taken to implement what we suggest.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) mentioned the large advertisement at Heathrow underground station. It is set out in a way that gives the impression that some sort of Government body is behind it. It goes on to provide a list of services that are all provided free by Members of Parliament. The final words of the advertisement claim that "success is certain". That is an outrageous claim; we all know how uncertain success really is and how often our most determined efforts fail to help people with immigration and asylum problems.

Mr. Keith Hill: Given that these utterly fraudulent advertisements are appearing at Heathrow, is it not ironic that the British Airports Authority should recently have decided that bona fide immigration legal advice organisations may not put up notices at airports advising people of the necessity to register their asylum claims immediately or face losing benefits and other rights? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should insist that the BAA allows such notices to be put up?

Mrs. Fyfe: That is a good point. I am surprised that the BAA should have done that. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will take up the matter with local representatives of the BAA, to persuade them to change their minds. Perhaps the Government should make them change their minds, for the service is certainly needed.
I believe that the Government should take firm action to counter misleading advertising of the kind that we have been describing. What advice in writing is given to people on arrival in Britain—people who may find themselves in difficulties? Are they given a note printed in a variety of languages, telling them where they can go for free advice?
Is there a list of bodies that are recognised as competent and well informed on such matters? It would be interesting to know whether any such advice is given. I do not remember the subject coming up in Committee, but we should not continue tonight without knowing whether the Government will quibble about the meaning of regulations and competence.
It is incumbent on the Government to say what they are willing to do to protect people from being ripped off or losing their chance to appeal on time because of incompetent conduct by someone who might just be there to rake in the cash and is not concerned about providing a competent service.
Problems can also arise from advice given by somebody who is trying to do their best, but who simply is not appropriately qualified or experienced to handle the task. In one case in my constituency, someone lost the right to appeal because a registered letter posted to his solicitor's office was apparently not received. There are doubts about whether someone signed for that letter, and, if so, how it was lost, but my constituent has lost out. It is not his fault that the solicitor cannot run his office competently—if the letter was received there, which has still to be decided.
I hope that we will not continue further tonight without discovering precisely what protection the Government will give to people in such desperate circumstances.

Miss Widdecombe: This has been an important debate. I congratulate—to a limited extent—the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and, more particularly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), who led so magnificently on the issue in Committee. By raising the issue in Committee, ahead of the official Opposition, he drew attention to a major problem, which the Opposition have now been only too delighted to recognise for themselves.
The debate has thrown up some serious issues. Hon. Members on both sides of the House share the perception of the problem. We will, I am afraid, disagree about the solution, but there is a genuine shared perception of the problem.
It is obviously undesirable that people who are vulnerable and not competent in the ways of this country can be ruthlessly exploited. People in that situation are sometimes given not only incompetent advice, but advice that can be highly counter-productive to an otherwise perfectly straightforward procedure and claim. I wish to acknowledge that problem, because the Government share the concerns about those practices. We must ensure, however, that we have found the best way to address the issue.
Although I fully sympathise with the claim that somebody who is vulnerable, muddled and bewildered can be led into making untrue statements, nevertheless we must proclaim the simple message that honesty—which individuals should exhibit anyway—in immigration and asylum cases is absolutely the best policy.

Mr. Straw: I entirely share the Minister's view on that point, but does she accept that in many cases—not all of them, I agree—the issue is not honesty or the lack of it,


but ignorance of law? The advisers provide a bogus interpretation of the law, and the potential immigrant cannot be expected to know what the law is.

Miss Widdecombe: I understand that. My point related to cases in which immigrants are advised to claim, not on an interpretation of the law, but on a completely false basis as students or spouses.
There is a simple message for the immigrant community, which is that the best policy for those applying for extensions or renewal is straight honesty with us.

Mr. Vaz: I do not think that there is anything between us, given what the Minister has said so far. Will she give a commitment, however, that, when Ministers examine cases that have been raised by hon. Members, in which constituents have been wrongly advised by immigration practitioners who have acted irresponsibly, Ministers will not prejudice such cases because of the wrong advice that individuals have received?

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman reflects, I am sure that he will realise that I cannot give a blanket exemption for any false statements made, or any approach to the Home Office that is wrongly constructed, merely because an immigration adviser was involved. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has especially difficult cases that they wish to draw to Ministers' attention, I am sure that Ministers will examine them, with a view to the individual and to evidence of the extent of the problem, which is one of the stumbling blocks.
Those who are seeking immigration advice already have a number of outlets to which they can turn. They can go to law centres, citizens advice bureaux, the Refugee Council, refugee legal centres, the Immigration Advisory Service, reputable solicitors and Members. These outlets give reputable and, I hope, nearly always competent help to those seeking their advice.
The second message that needs to go out is that it is not necessary to consult someone round the corner. There are many places where individuals can go to get reputable help, even if that help is only to steer them in the direction of further reputable help, which I consider to be important. It may sound simple to send out messages about honesty and seeking reputable help, but it is necessary that the points are made.
The main thrust of the new clause—

Mrs. Fyfe: A variety of advice is available, but is someone who arrives at a port of entry given that information in several languages so that he might understand what is available, or is he expected to understand English?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady raised that matter this afternoon, as she did in Committee. We give advice to entrants on arrival. I do not mean that we would give detailed advice in a particular case. We give general advice on the help that is available. We have a number of information leaflets available to those who make applications to remain in this country. They include asylum seekers, but the leaflets are not exclusive to them.
Information is available in a number of languages. It is important that people should at least be told where they can go to obtain reasonable advice.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister at least consider the suggestion that I made during the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz)—that the Home Office might adopt a procedure whereby all communications are sent both to the applicant and to his or her representative, and not only to the representative? It would be a simple procedure that would not cost the earth. It would help to minimise the damage that might be done by some unscrupulous advisers who do not act upon communications or respond to them, often leaving applicants in serious difficulties.

Miss Widdecombe: I understand the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has identified. However, I think that the procedure he mentioned would be somewhat more complicated and expensive than he suggests. I shall, however, undertake to write to him with the rationale for our not going down that route, so that he will at least have full information as to why we do not think that it is feasible.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I hope that I will eventually be able to get to the new clause.

Mr. Gerrard: I thank the Minister for giving way, because this is an important point. Will the Minister consider, if not copying all correspondence to the applicant as well as the adviser, ensuring that at least the absolutely vital documents, such as notices of appeal, are sent to the applicant as well as to the adviser? I certainly—like, I am sure, other hon. Members—have come across cases in which people have lost rights of appeal simply because an adviser never acted on a notice. If the applicant had at least those essential documents, that problem might be avoided.

Miss Widdecombe: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but one has to consider normal practice. If one is dealing with a normal legal practice, for example, the normal practice is to send documents that relate to a case to the legal practitioner. I have already told the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that I will set out the rationale for our position, and I will ensure that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) receives a copy. We can manage that duplication on this occasion.

Mr. Vaz: I am sorry to prolong this point, but does the Minister accept that, when a Member of Parliament writes to a Minister to makes representations on a case, and the letter is sent on by the Minister to the immigration and nationality department, it is absolutely vital that that hon. Member should be informed of the outcome of the case? If not, we are left to track cases with our very limited resources.
I have an on-going case load of about 2,000 immigration cases, and it is simply not possible to track each one of them, whereas the IND will have a file and will know when an hon. Member has written about a case. It would be ever so easy to inform that hon. Member of the case's outcome.

Miss Widdecombe: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, although I cannot boast a case load of 2,000, as a constituency Member of Parliament I also deal with immigration cases. My practice is very simple: I ask the constituent to let me know as soon as there is any development, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. That is how I operate.

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman again, and I shall do so, I should like to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West, which was whether we could simply duplicate the correspondence to representatives and to applicants.
If an applicant asks for it, he can, of course, have a copy. We restrict our communications to the applicant's representative, because he has appointed the representative to act on his behalf. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, the representative is the applicant—in the legal sense of word.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I now have a queue. I shall first give way to the hon. Member for Blackburn.

Mr. Straw: I understand the point that the Minister is making, but will she acknowledge that the Inland Revenue's practice, for example, is quite different, in that, partly to protect itself—I think that this would be a protection for the Home Office as well—it has a standing rule by which it copies the notice to the taxpayer whenever it writes to a taxpayer's adviser?

Miss Widdecombe: I acknowledge the Inland Revenue's practice, but the Home Office's practice is under discussion. I have said—I do not think that I can improve on it—that I will set out our rationale in writing. I shall take one more point from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and then leave this point and proceed with the debate.

Mr. Vaz: I think that the Minister acknowledges that these matters are very serious and important.

Miss Widdecombe: Yes.

Mr. Vaz: If a constituent receives a notice saying that he is about to be deported, the difficulty in getting in touch with an hon. Member who is in the Chamber—or for an hon. Member from a constituency outside London to see his constituent—to take fresh representations, and to pass those on to the private office and from the private office to Castle Donington, for example, is a long and complicated route.
In his letter of 8 February, which caused me concern, the junior Minister responsible for immigration stated that it is normal practice not to write to tell me what is happening after I have raised a case with him. That has never been the practice of Ministers charged with immigration matters. I always received a response from his predecessors, as far back as the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), when he was Minister of State, Home Office. They always kept Members of

Parliament informed when we raised cases with them. It has never been the case that we have not been told of the outcome.

Miss Widdecombe: At the risk of becoming repetitive, which I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not approve, I have said that we will communicate with hon. Members who have raised points on this issue, explaining the full rationale as to why we implement the practices that we implement and have implemented for some time.
I now come to the essence of new clause 1, much of which is the same as new clause 7. The distinction between the two is that, in the Opposition's amendment, an authority would be created, whereas, in the amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, a council would be set up to distribute licences.
We had a full discussion in Committee about licensing immigration practitioners, and I explained then that we shared many of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth. Indeed, I was joined in that concern by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). I am delighted to see them here today.
We made it clear that a statutory scheme, such as that envisaged by the Opposition, would not necessarily be the best option, nor did the scale of the problem merit a response based on a statutory scheme. I pressed just one small example with the hon. Member for Blackburn about tests of competence, and he acknowledged absolutely, as did the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), that it would have to be worked through and that it was not entirely straightforward.
The setting up of bodies—examining bodies, qualifying bodies and the rest—is quite a complex procedure. We are not convinced, for example, that it could be done without expense, at least not at start-up, and at the moment the Bill has no money resolution attached, so it would give us a major problem.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to quantify the extent of the problem, because sometimes the person has gone away, has left the country, has not arrived in the country, or has been deported and has no recourse to complain negligence or tort because he or she does not know how or where to go to complain, or is not here?

Miss Widdecombe: I acknowledge that that is one of the complications. A further complication is that much of the information we have is anecdotal rather than empirical and fully worked out. We need to examine the scale of the problem. We also need to examine what protection already exists.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised a point about a poster that advertised success. I must point out the obvious, that there are controls on misleading claims in advertising, and it should be possible for anyone who is misled in such a way to seek redress under that part of the law. We also have a clear law on trade descriptions, and a number of other perfectly reasonable devices are in place to try to control such activities. That needs further examination.

Mr. Alton: It seems to me that the Minister is saying that, if the empirical evidence can be provided, at least the Home Office might have an open mind. I want to be clear whether that is really what she is saying. Will she ask Mr. Justice Sedley, to whom I referred, to give evidence to the Home Office on his recommendation, and undertake to look at the Australian scheme, which functions perfectly properly?

Miss Widdecombe: If only the hon. Gentleman were patient, he would hear what I am going to say. Although it may not meet his requirements precisely, I hope that it will go some way towards doing so.
Along with the Law Society and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, we have already been considering the best solution. As the hon. Member for Blackburn acknowledged, the Lord Chancellor's Department also has an interest in the matter, not least because of the supervisory role envisaged in both the Opposition's and my hon. Friend's new clauses. The discussions that we have had so far have not suggested a clear way forward, which is why I must resist the new clauses.
The Law Society and the ILPA have given us a good deal of advice, for which I am grateful; but they too are still considering the issues in detail. They consider those issues difficult and complicated, in terms of both statutory regulation and any self-regulation, which is the option that we tried to explore with them. They have communicated their current views, and the extent to which they might be able to contribute to a solution. The Law Society is still discussing the matter; the ILPA may be able to offer some limited assistance, but it has said that it would not be able to run a full-blown self-regulation scheme, for instance.
Neither body—both are entirely independent of Government—has reached a clear view, although, as I have said, I am grateful to them for giving the matter urgent consideration. For the time being, therefore, we cannot be convinced that the way forward lies either directly in a statutory scheme, as proposed by the new clauses, or in self-regulation; but we are still discussing the matter with interested parties.

Mr. Deva: I hope that my hon. Friend will press on. I think that she is now aware of the magnitude of the problem, and the concern that is felt not only by hon. Members on both sides of the House but by ordinary people—largely members of ethnic minorities—who feel that they are or their relatives have been ripped off. I am glad that my hon. Friend has embarked on discussions with various bodies.

Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I give him an undertaking that we shall continue to consider the problem—whose existence I acknowledge, although I cannot yet acknowledge its extent, because that is not yet clear. We shall go on discussing it with interested parties, and we shall try to arrive at a balanced and proportionate solution. On that basis, however, I must urge the House to resist the new clause.

Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) raised an important matter that is related the issue of advice: the right of hon. Members to receive

copies of correspondence. I listened carefully to what the Minister said; I hope that she will take up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, which I followed up with a letter to the Home Secretary.
I believe that the current arrangements, under which hon. Members do not automatically receive copies of the result or disposal of a case that they initially raised, lead to more paperwork for the Home Office. In my experience, the constituent will come back, and I will have no knowledge of how the case involved has been disposed of. Constituents often do not have a copy of the letter that they have received—although they may give an imaginative interpretation of the letter they think they received. I end up having to write a further letter to the Home Office to get the reply, whereas, if I had had it in the first place, it could all have been resolved. It is a question not only of the rights of the House but of good administration.
When I raised the example of the Inland Revenue, the Minister said that she was speaking of the Home Office. I know that the Home Office regards itself as a part of the British constitution separate from other Departments, but it sometimes helps if one Department learns from the experience of another. I urge that on her.
Although the Minister has been uncharacteristically reasonable, at least in tone, I did not consider her answers satisfactory.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman surprises me.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady says that I surprise her. The reason for that—

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: Of course I give way to the hon. Lady.

Miss Widdecombe: I have undertaken to write to the hon. Gentleman about our practice, and I will do so. We receive approximately 10,000 letters from Members of Parliament on immigration cases. Some cases take a considerable amount of time to resolve, go through various stages and generate an enormous volume of correspondence. We must consider the feasibility of duplicating that.
I must add one thing, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I never like to mislead the House. When, in response to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), I discussed the advice that we give people arriving in this country, I should, of course, have said—this is technical, but I want to correct it, anyway—that the advice we offer is to applicants, not to all entrants.

Mr. Straw: I am sure that we are grateful for that clarification. We take note that the hon. Lady is learning the dangers of even inadvertently misleading the House.
When I said that the hon. Lady's answer was unsatisfactory, I was trying to be economical with my language. I meant that her responses both to the discrete but important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and to the general principle raised by the new clause were unsatisfactory. She has admitted that there is a problem, but denied it an effective solution. I regret that she has done that.
We have accepted, as is inherent in any such scheme, that important administrative details must be worked through. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) raised some points of that sort.
We are not suggesting that genuine family friends should be prohibited from speaking on behalf of their friends. In the real word, it would not be possible to prohibit that. As with every scheme of statutory regulation—indeed, with the whole criminal law—one cannot deal with every conceivable mischief. However, the fact that one cannot do everything does not mean that one should do nothing. A statutory scheme would be a significant advance on what exists.
The Minister said that she was not aware of the scale of the problem. That is why I am deeply unhappy about her response. Any number of staff in the immigration and nationality department could rapidly give her a sense of it, but it is not one capable of scientific measurement. It would be difficult to measure, because such people, by definition, are not subject to regulation. One would not know where to start. We all know that it is a major problem.

Mr. Deva: indicated assent.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) nodding. The Home Office also knows it, because it is caused immense additional paperwork and cost by the way in which unscrupulous advisers operate.
The Minister raised the position of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Law Society. They are still working through their ideas, but it is my understanding that both bodies support our scheme.
I would have much preferred the Minister to say that she recognised the problem, and that the broad outline of the scheme that we propose in new clause 1 marks out the solution that ought to be followed, but that more work should be done and, therefore, Ministers would invite us to withdraw it and would table appropriate, properly drafted amendments in Committee in the other place.
Although the Minister says that she will now give her urgent attention to the matter, frankly, I do not believe that she has given it sufficient urgent attention to date. It is two years since the discussions with the ILPA and the Law Society began. For that reason—we do not want to detain the House with a Division—we shall not seek to withdraw the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 2

CONSULTATION

':—(1) Orders made under section 8 or section 9 of this Act shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House.

(2) No motion to approve a draft order laid before Parliament under subsection (1) above shall be made before a period of 28 days has expired after the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement of the consultations he has undertaken on the likely effects of making any such order, and summarising the responses he has received to his proposals.

(3) In discharging his duty under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall have particular regard—
(a) to the effect on race relations of any order made under sections 8 or 9 above;
(b) to the anticipated effects on employment of members of the black and ethnic minority communities of any order under section 8 above;
(c) to the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 insofar as they relate to the duties of housing authorities;
(d) to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985 insofar as they relate to the duties of housing authorities;
(e) to the provisions of the Children Act 1989 or the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, insofar as they affect social services authorities as a result of any order proposed to be made under section 9 above; and
(f) to the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1988 and of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 insofar as they affect social services authorities as a result of any order proposed to be made under section 9 above.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in discharging his duty under subsection (1) above to consult—
(a) organisations appearing to him to be representative of the authorities concerned and other organisations having an interest;
(b) organisations appearing to him to be representative of employers and employees; and
(c) the Commission for Racial Equality.'.—[Mr. Henderson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5 pm

Mr. Doug Henderson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Costs and benefits—
'. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within two years of the coming into effect of this Act, a Statement of the effects of the provisions of the Act and of any order made under the Act on—
(a) employment;
(b) the social security budget;
(c) the demands placed upon social services authorities; and
(d) the demands placed upon housing authorities.'.
Amendment No. 17, clause 8, in page 5, leave out lines 42 to 44.
Amendment No. 54, in page 5, line 44, at end insert—
'(8) No order shall be made under this section until the expiration a period of three months after the publication by the Secretary of State of the provisions of the order, during which period the Secretary of State shall—

(a) give notice of the terms of the proposed order to organisations appearing to him to be representative of employers;
(b) make all reasonable efforts to publicise the duties on employers proposed in the order; and
(c) establish a telephone enquiry service from which employers may obtain advice on the duties which will be placed upon them.'.
Amendment No. 18, clause 9, in page 6, leave out lines 13 to 15.

Mr. Henderson: As became obvious to those of us who served on the Standing Committee, the Bill is


something of a pig in a poke. It is an enabling Bill that does not specify how it will impact on the manner in which applications for political asylum are dealt with and how employers' checks are made, or the documents that will be relevant and what will happen with housing and child benefit. It does not even designate in detail who will be affected.
Three crucial parts of the Bill are left for the Secretary of State to introduce by order. The Bill empowers him to determine which categories of immigrant are covered by clause 8, to classify which documents may be used to check whether someone is legally able to work and to decide which category is excluded from housing entitlement.
If it were not bad enough that the Government cannot give the House details on those matters—and failed to do so in Committee—when the Government are able to produce the orders, the House will not have an opportunity to discuss them before they come into effect because the Bill—we may return to this matter—adopts the negative resolution procedure.
This is an enabling Bill and none of the people affected by it—whether they are persons seeking asylum, persons assisting those seeking asylum, persons checking the legitimacy of documents or persons providing housing benefit, assistance or child benefit—will know what obligations it will impose on them until the orders are produced. That is unacceptable.
The Opposition oppose clauses 8 and 9 on principle and will deal later with some of the reasoning behind them. It would be more appropriate to leave my comments on that matter until then. I can assure the House, however, that I am opposed to those clauses on principle, first, because they are wrong and secondly, because they will not work. That was one of the principal reasons why, on Second Reading, a Special Standing Committee was proposed—a proposition that was supported by the Opposition parties. That procedure would have made it possible to discuss the detail and enabled those with an axe to grind or with expertise or knowledge of the issue and those who felt that they would be particularly affected to make representations before the House considered them in Committee and before the Secretary of State drew up his proposals on the orders.
As I hope I have explained, the reasoning behind new clause 2 is that something should be done before the Bill, and the orders for which it provides, take effect. The new clause would require the Government to meet a number of obligations before introducing the orders. If the Government had accepted the proposal for a Special Standing Committee, some of those obligations might not have been necessary but, particularly as they rejected that procedure, they clearly are.
The new clause is also important for democracy. Too often in recent years, the authority of the House has been abused by the Government, who have said, "We know better than Parliament. We're going to take ministerial decisions regardless of what Parliament says. We're going to draft legislation to minimise the impact of Parliament and give us the maximum scope to do what we think is right." On occasions, they might be right, but it is an affront to parliamentary democracy when a Government continue relentlessly to abuse their position.
The Bill is a classic example of the Government's deciding to take away the authority of Parliament. They have not been prepared to come up with their views—perhaps because they do not yet have any on some of the matters or, as is more likely, because they think that their views will be unacceptable to the House. Rather than argue about what the obligations of employers or the responsibility of a housing authority should be, or about the procedure that should be adopted to deal with political asylum cases, the Government have produced an enabling Bill and said that they will draw up the guidelines in secret, get them through Parliament in an order and, essentially prevent Parliament from debating them before they come into effect. That is wrong and it is why we have tabled the new clause.
The Government will argue that the Bill has few race relations implications—perhaps they will argue that it has none. I must remind the House that that is not what the Conservative candidate for the South Cambridgeshire European parliamentary constituency said when he was head of the research department at Conservative central office. He wrote in The Observer that the Conservatives played the race card at the European election, that they played the race card at the last general election and that if they played it again it would hurt.
Whatever else one might think of the Conservative candidate for South Cambridgeshire, he understands the implications of Bills such as this. He is not the only one. The Federation of Small Businesses said in its presentation that race relations would be damaged. The Trades Union Congress has said that it is "extremely concerned" about the Bill's impact on race relations. In its representations, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce said that race relations are crucial. Amnesty International said that it sees many implications for race relations in the Bill. The Commission for Racial Equality—a Government-appointed body—also said that it sees many implications for race relations in the Bill.
The Confederation of British Industry said—the detail of this was dealt with in Committee—that there are very serious implications for race relations in the Bill. Although the Institute of Directors has withdrawn some of its original objections to the Bill, and to clause 8 in particular, it still acknowledges that there are implications for race relations.
What is more important—if we are to have a secure and stable society—is the fact that the black, Asian and other ethnic communities believe that the Bill will have serious implications for their lives and those of their friends and communities.
Many Conservative Members—especially those who represent constituencies with multi-racial and differing ethnic community groups—recognise the serious implications that the Bill will have on the communities that they represent. It is noticeable that a number of them, who I thought would have spoken in this debate, are keeping their heads down and leaving it to Ministers. I believe that, ultimately, they do not support the Government on many provisions in the Bill.
The Labour party has tabled new clause 2 because it believes that paragraphs (3)(a), (b) and (c) will provide a little mitigation against the damage that the Government might do. Before they pursue a particular course of action, the Government have an obligation to investigate and consult various bodies—including the Commission for Racial Equality—on the impact of the Bill.
The Government believe that they have reassured housing authorities on how they will be affected by clause 9. When the Secretary of State for Social Security made a statement on this matter a few weeks ago, he gave the impression that he had managed to reach an understanding, a rapport and an arrangement with housing authorities, but that is not what housing authorities think—in fact, it is not even what Westminster city council thinks. It is not satisfied with the Secretary of State's assurances relating to clause 9. As I understand it, the authority will take action in the courts in the coming weeks to seek guarantees on the impact of the Bill.
The council believes that Westminster council tax payers may have to pick up the tab for what amounts to Tory national propaganda and electioneering. That is a fear of Westminster city council—which is always cast as an ideal council. The Government have spectacularly failed to persuade Westminster city council of the implications of the Bill—never mind the rights or wrongs of it. That is why the Opposition have included paragraph (d), which requires the Government to look at the implications before decisions are made on this issue.
The same applies to social services where, no doubt, the Government will repeat what the Secretary of State for Social Security attempted to say some weeks ago—that local authorities' responsibilities in relation to the care of children have been taken into account and solutions have been found. Many social services departments that I have spoken to, especially those in the London area where many people initially seek political asylum, are not convinced. They fear for the effects on their communities and on their councils' budgets. The Government have not convinced many bodies that may be charged with implementing the proposals what the effect will be.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The Government have failed to consult and to make matters clear to local authorities' social services departments—and that failure is having a serious impact on people who do not come under the prescriptions of the Bill.
For example, a family is engaged in a struggle with Westminster city council on a housing issue because children are involved. The council has denied them a house. Westminster social services visited the family and demanded their passports—the children were born in this country and the woman is a British citizen, but is dark of skin and dark of hair. When I called Westminster social services to discover why, I was told that a young trainee social services worker had processed the case and that she may have been confused by the requirements of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. If such confusion is impacting on people who do not come under the Bill, what effect will it have on those who may come under it?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example, which illustrates some of the damaging effects that are taking place even before the Bill becomes law. In employment, many millions of people who should not be affected by the Bill will be caught. That is further evidence of its damaging nature.
New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament—within two years of the Act's coming into effect—the Bill's effects on employment and the

social security budget and the demands it would place on social services and housing authorities. New clause 2 requires consultation and that the results of it should be made available to hon. Members before anything happens; new clause 3 requires further investigation of those matters. Amendment No. 54 requires an impact audit. I draw the importance of that amendment to the attention of hon. Members.
The main thrust of this group of new clauses and amendments is that the Government have yet again ignored Parliament—they think that they know better, that they can pursue their own course and that the Secretary of State should have the power to draw up orders that can only be negatived by Parliament, even before Parliament is given information about how the Secretary of State reached his decision. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Alton: In political life, we are all prone—especially in the lead-up to a general election—to making quite a lot of the motives of our opponents. Much has been said on Second Reading, in Committee and today about the possible motives behind the timing and nature of the Bill. These new clauses move us from the debate about motives to evaluation—what the impact of the Bill is likely to be. That allows us to assess it rationally to see what effects it is having and whether our worst fears are being borne out and, if so, what might be done to remove the worst effects.
The new clauses should be commended. Far too often, legislation is rushed through pell-mell, without proper consideration, and we do not consider its effect. It is almost as though, once a Bill completes its stages here, we forget about it and no longer care about it. I have thought for some time that we should, perhaps, have family impact statements, rather like environment impact statements, to assess the effect legislation has on families. They would be a useful indicator of what measures or policies did to vulnerable people.
The new clauses give us a chance to consider what the Bill would do in practice to asylum seekers and refugees. New clause 3 is interested in the effect on employment, on the social security budget and on the demand placed on local authorities, housing associations and so on. It gives us a chance to reflect on the fears that people such as the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) have raised in relation to the effect on councils' local budgets. It gives us a chance to see whether the Government have made adequate resources available to compensate for the money that they are boasting they will save—up to £200 million—in the social security budget.
If savings are being made by central Government, we would expect some of them to be made available to local authorities. Unless there is some form of assessment, we shall never know whether that has been done.
This is an age in which we are constantly assessing everybody. The Government are always encouraging us to assess the performance of local authorities, schools and individual pupils, and we are constantly being given league tables. It is therefore not unreasonable for hon. Members to suggest that the same principle might also be applied to the Government's legislation: we should assess its effect.
The two new clauses deal with clauses 8 and 9 and are extremely helpful in pinpointing two of the Bill's most damaging features. The first is the effect on good race


relations; the second involves the onerous burden that the Bill will place on employers and local authorities. The new clauses aim to monitor those who will suffer disadvantageous effects and to build in a mechanism to assess the impact and damage of the worst effects.
The Opposition have been accused of exaggerating the worst effects of the Bill. Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister said that hon. Members were exaggerating. Perhaps she will listen to someone such as Adair Turner of the Confederation of British Industry, who said:
The proposed legislation will do nothing to improve equal opportunities and may undermine employers' commitment to implement equal opportunities policies.
I was staggered to see in the briefing provided by the Trades Union Congress and the CBI that 42 different documents at one time or another may have to be validated by an employer.

Miss Widdecombe: No.

Mr. Alton: Yes—42 different documents may have to be validated by an employer at one time or another. The documents range across a spectrum of subjects. I see that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has the list in his hand.

Miss Widdecombe: Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that the employer does not have to validate 42 documents each time. We are trying to make it easy for the employer by giving him a range of documents to which he can refer—the greater the choice, the easier it is.

Mr. Alton: I know that the hon. Lady argues for choice, but we are talking about 42 separate and different documents, any one of which could come before a perplexed employer at any time. Over the years, if people arrive from different parts of the world, an employer may have to deal with any one of those 42 documents—that is clearly what the effect will be.
The provision is in line with the Government's approach. They do not merely try to turn airline stewards into quasi-immigration officials, but try to turn employers into part-time immigration officials. The effect of the Bill would be to corral employers and personnel officers into the same service as that which airline companies were pushed into four years ago.
The Bill will not just involve additional burdens; it will dramatically and radically alter for the worst the relationship between employers and employees. Those damaging effects were underlined in a joint letter to The Times signed by John Monks of the TUC, Ron Taylor, CBE, of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, Jacqueline Jeynes of the Federation of Small Businesses, Tim Melville-Ross of the Institute of Directors, Roger Young of the Institute of Management and Geoff Armstrong of the Institute of Personnel and Development. Presumably not even the Minister would suggest that those people are all card-carrying members of the Labour party or Liberal Democrats. They said:
As well as placing an unjustifiable burden on employers, the proposal threatens to damage race relations. There would be every incentive not to hire black staff or people with foreign sounding names; and to concentrate checks on ethnic minority employees.

The new clauses are designed to address those concerns and to assess the impact that the new law would have.
The Bill also contrasts with the Government's much-vaunted concern about red tape and bureaucracy and the removal of unnecessary burdens on employers. It contrasts the manifesto promises and claims that are constantly made with the reality of what is likely to happen when Parliament passes the Bill, the latest piece of burdensome legislation.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way again. He is pouring scorn on our proposals. What proposal does he have for stopping illegal employment?

Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady knows that I am opposed to the breaking of the law. There are already laws that provide safeguards: where abuses occur, it is possible to take the matter to court. It is also possible—the hon. Lady knows this as she does it all the time—to remove people from this country if they break our existing laws. Had the CBI, the chambers of commerce, and employers exerted pressure and said that the law was being broken all the time or if the TUC had exerted pressure and said that British workers were being denied many employment opportunities owing to the large number of abuses, I might well have been convinced of the need for reform, but the hon. Lady knows as well as I do that no such representations were forthcoming.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is right: we can remove people who are working illegally. What remedies exist in current law—without the proposal—to prosecute employers who employ illegally? Does the hon. Gentleman want employers to be able to go on doing that?

Mr. Alton: I do not particularly want employers to be taken to court by the Minister's Department, or punitive sentences to be placed on them, or to see their businesses crippled and them broken as a result. I do not think that such a system would help the cause of the unemployed or businesses. I do not think that there is a problem of the magnitude that the hon. Lady tries to imply. Action can be, and sometimes is, taken against the illegal employee, and the hon. Lady knows that as well as I do. The Government are making a legislative mountain out of a molehill. The Bill will have disastrous consequences, not just for employers, but for good race relations.
The Association of British Chambers of Commerce was in no doubt about the Bill's deleterious effect, and the damage that it would cause, when it said:
We are concerned that this could manifest itself into racial discrimination. In a situation where there are two similarly qualified potential employees, employers may be biased towards selecting the person with a P45 and an NI number. Even firms with a racial equality policy may select someone with a P45 and an NI number to ensure they cannot possibly face a fine.
Those are the consequences which, we are being told—with our eyes wide open—we shall face if we pass the Bill.
I fear that we shall create a situation analogous to the one that exists in many parts of the United States, where there are shanty towns of illegals—people who have been driven out of the benefit system, who have no assistance or aid from the state and who have been refused any


legitimate help. Such people are driven into an illegal status and then into illegal forms of work. Aspects of the Bill will compound the problem, which is not currently serious.

Mr. Madden: I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he remember that, in Committee, the Minister, when pressed, found it impossible to quantify the extent either of illegal working or of illegal employment? Does he also recall that, in the consultation exercise, of the 43 respondents, only three gave broad support to the Government's proposals? Does he remember the Minister of State telling the Committee that the Government had every intention of implementing the proposals with what she described as a light touch?

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman was right to mention the "light touch", which contrasts with the Minister's earlier heavy-handed intervention. She is now promising us punitive prosecutions that will be deployed against employers throughout the land. That will have a disastrous effect on industrial relations. I hope that members of the CBI will read carefully the report of our debate in Hansard so that they understand what, according to the Minister's words this afternoon, lies in store for them.
Before flying in the face of such strong and well-founded objections, most rational people would at least pause—but not the Home Office. If the Government were to accept the new clauses they would at least be creating a system of evaluation. It would be an extremely good principle if many of the other hasty and ill-considered measures that are railroaded through the House at breakneck speed were similarly subjected to an appraisal to discover whether, when enacted, they achieved the objectives set out for them by Ministers at earlier stages of deliberation.
In that spirit, I commend to hon. Members new clauses 2 and 3, which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I shall certainly support.

Mr. Gerrard: I shall be brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) spoke about the enabling nature of much of the Bill. Clause after clause of recent Bills has given Ministers powers to introduce regulations instead of detailing on the face of the Bill what will happen.
The Asylum and Immigration Bill is no different. Under clauses 8 and 9 especially, Ministers are given powers to specify who will be affected by restrictions on employment and, rights to housing and withdrawal of child benefit.
Although the difference between the negative resolution procedure and the positive resolution procedure may seem technical to many people outside the House, it is important. If the procedure proposed in the Bill is used—the negative resolution procedure—an order may be laid by the Minister but not debated for several weeks.
5.30 pm
Let us suppose that a Minister chooses to lay an order just before the summer recess. There are 40 days in which prayers can be laid against a negative order, but the clock stops ticking during the long summer recess. We then have only a few days in the spill-over to finish the Session

before taking another recess. It may be the end of November before those 40 days run out and a debate takes place—if there is a debate as a result of a prayer against the negative resolution. In other words, that resolution may be in effect for five months before a debate can take place on it.
The decisions that are to be made in resolutions under the clauses are not trivial. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 depend on the definition of the word "immigrant". The Minister stated on Second Reading and again in Committee how the Government intend that the definitions will be written, but there is nothing to prevent a future Minister—or the same Minister—from deciding to change the definition of the word "immigrant". Once that happens, a new range of people may find that they lose employment, housing and child benefit.
Decisions to remove those rights from people are not trivial, and they certainly should not be taken without any opportunity for debate or scrutiny in the House. The regulations may be in force for five months before they are debated. What would happen if, at the end of that period, by some chance, Parliament were to decide to reject the Minister's regulations, which rarely happens but is possible? What is the position of a person who, in the meantime, has lost his job or house as a result of regulations introduced five months before? Decisions with such major implications for people's lives should not be made in that way.
New clause 2 proposes an alternative mechanism, requiring consultation and a positive resolution of the House before regulations come into effect. The report on the results of the consultation would allow an informed decision to be taken on the likely effects of the regulations.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke of the need to examine how the Bill will operate and said that, far too often, we pass legislation without considering thereafter what happens as a result.
The Minister says that the effects of the Bill are being exaggerated. If so, I do not understand why there should be any unease about reporting its effects to Parliament. We were told that we were exaggerating the effects of the social security changes. Refugee organisations say that people turn up in their offices, penniless, because benefits are being withdrawn. I was recently told of a man who wanted to buy a bag of rice but had no money, so he tried to bargain with the shopkeeper to hold his passport as security against the bag of rice. That man was an asylum seeker whose benefits had been withdrawn. If Ministers are not worried about the effects of the Bill, let them report back.
The Bill places demands on social services and housing authorities. Ministers have said that the Government will provide local authorities with money to meet those demands; let us ensure that they do. I suspect that, in a year's time, local authorities will tell us that the sums that they have had to spend are far greater than Ministers estimated, and Ministers will tell us, "The local authorities are wrong; we have met the bills." It will probably be impossible to decide because there will be no hard factual evidence to make comparisons easy. Let us have a report showing exactly what has happened.
Amendment No. 54 deals with employment issues. The Minister scoffed when the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said that 42 different documents might have to be


recognised by an employer. In Committee, the Home Office provided us with a draft schedule, suggesting several documents.
The schedule included documents issued by previous employers, the Inland Revenue, the Benefits Agency, the Contributions Agency and the Employment Service that contain a national insurance number. That is half a dozen to start with. Also included were a birth certificate, a passport describing the holder as a British citizen or having the right of abode in the United Kingdom, a certificate of registration or naturalisation and a letter issued by the Home Office or the Department for Education and Employment, stating that the person named in the letter has permission to take employment. We are up to 12 or 14 now.
The schedule also includes a passport issued by a state that is a party to the European Economic Area agreement—not one document, but one document for every state-and an identity card issued by a state that is a party to the European Economic Area agreement, which is also not one document but may be from any of the states.
If I were presented with a document and told that it was an identity card from Luxembourg, I should have the greatest difficulty knowing whether it was an identity card from Luxembourg. What is being produced is to some extent a forgers' charter. Employers will be given documents and told, "This is an identity card from Liechtenstein"—or Luxembourg or Belgium—which they will not be qualified to recognise.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said in Committee, the Government have still not closed the loophole on birth certificates, although an amendment has been tabled for consideration on Report. Anyone can obtain a birth certificate without proving that they are the person identified on it.
Those provisions will be unworkable and wide open to fraud. According to evidence gathered in the United States, where similar legislation was introduced, the measures will deter employers from employing people on whom they may have to make checks. It is not my son who will walk through an employer's door and be asked to produce a passport or birth certificate: it is the sons and daughters of my black and Asian constituents. It is likely that they will not be asked for interviews or offered jobs because employers will simply want to avoid making checks. Research in the United States showed that that is what occurred: employers were scared by the legislation and they tried to avoid implementing its provisions. They achieved that end through discrimination.
If the Government intend to press ahead and retain the powers in the Bill, it is vital that they consider seriously the proposals in amendment No. 54, under which employers would receive clear information and a telephone helpline would be established, to allow the Government at least to make an effort to ensure that employers understand what is and is not required of them. Employers should not start imagining that they must comply with conditions that do not exist. We can return later to the issue of turning employers into pseudo-immigration officers. The point in amendment No. 54 about supplying information is absolutely vital. If employers are allowed to operate in relative ignorance, the guaranteed effect will be discrimination.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I concur with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said. I shall speak particularly to new clause 2 and to paragraphs (d) and (e).
Even before the legislation is on the statute book, its provisions are being put into effect. Today I met a constituent who is a member of a religious order whose chapter house is located in my constituency. She is particularly concerned about the measures in the Bill because they will impact on local authorities and because they are already impacting on asylum seekers.
My constituent told me about a woman whom her order has taken in. She is eight months pregnant, entirely alone and homeless and penniless. When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), I referred to the Government's failure truly to consult local authorities about their responsibilities under the Housing Act 1985 and the Children Act 1989. I said that that failure is percolating through the system and I provided an example.
The woman I spoke of has every right to be housed by a local authority: she is a British citizen and her children were born in this country. However, because the Government have failed genuinely to consult local authorities and because that woman's skin is dark and her hair is black, a junior social services worker automatically presupposed that she was attempting to find housing under the asylum and immigration legislation and that her application would be denied.
My local authority has estimated that the cost of its additional responsibilities will be £4.6 million. Although the Government claim that they are consulting local authorities, they have not confirmed whether local authorities will be fully compensated for those additional costs or for how long the costs will be funded by Government. Council services to taxpayers are already diminishing in London boroughs and council tax will increase as an inevitable result of the Government's actions. I believe that the indigenous population will perceive—however wrong it may be—that it is paying more because asylum seekers are being allowed into this country. It beggars belief that the Government cannot see that that may have serious consequences for race relations. That would seem to be an inevitable outcome of the Government's absolute failure genuinely to consult on the Bill's real effects on people's lives.
5.45 pm
My constituent to whom I referred earlier works very closely with the Refugee Advisory Council and she told me that she has documentary evidence to prove that more than 100 asylum seekers are living on the streets of London without any means of financial support. The Bill has not yet become law. If that is the situation now, what will happen when it is enacted? The Government must accept our seemingly simple amendments and exercise some common sense. They must consult genuinely with those who will be responsible for administering what appears to be an inordinately ill-thought-out legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow referred to the identity card requirement as a forgers' charter. I agree with him absolutely. In the light of the Government's failure to consult on the Bill's real implications, we must also ask whether we shall see an increase in opportunistic crime. Will there be more


beggars on our streets? I do not claim that begging is a crime—people may have no alternative if they have no money and no means of finding support. Shall we receive complaints from our constituents about being harangued by beggars in the streets? Will letters appear in The Times and The Daily Telegraph complaining that so many beggars on our streets is bad for tourism? Such problems will increase because the Government have failed to speak to the people who, first, know what the Bill's implications will be; and, secondly, will be at the sharp end and will have to deal with its disastrous effects.
The Government have argued that it is vital to save British taxpayers £200 million. They have acknowledged, too, that the majority—some 90 per cent.—of asylum seekers and immigration applicants can be found in London. My local authority has estimated that the Bill will cost it an additional £4.6 million. If we multiply that figure by the number of London boroughs, we are looking at a cost that is infinitely greater than the supposed saving of £200 million. Of course, it is absolutely impossible to define in financial terms the human misery, degradation and despair that the Government's failure genuinely to consult will inevitably cause.
I urge Conservative Members to open their minds and imaginations—perhaps for the first time during the passage of the Bill—to what is buried under the simple words of the clauses and to think again.

Miss Widdecombe: I thought that the previous debate was productive and sensible, but this one is a marked deterioration. I shall deal first with what I can describe only as the rantings of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) who led for the Opposition. He began with the usual allegation that Ministers are playing the race card. One of the most damaging aspects of the debate is that Opposition Members regularly stir up alarmism and fear while accusing us of deliberately promoting discrimination. I believe that that is far more destabilising to race relations than firm and fair immigration controls, which is what the Bill is about. During his rant about racist comments, he omitted to refer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). I am sad that the hon. Gentleman is no longer in his place, and I acknowledge that he has been here for most of the proceedings. I should have liked to have heard him defend himself against the allegation that some of his remarks were not wholly unracist in tone.

Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is making allegations about my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who is not here, and she should know better. Will the Minister tell the House what she is alleging that my hon. Friend for Leicester, East said before she criticises him? It is not reasonable for her to do so without Members knowing what she is talking about.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must confess that I am not very clear either.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall not provide further clarification for the very good reason that I did not give the hon. Member for Leicester, East notice that I wished to raise the issue. If he returns to the Chamber, and I have an opportunity to give him notice, I shall give the details, although they are quite well known.
I shall deal now with what I hesitate to call the substance of the speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North—there was precious little substance to it. He said that the Government were afraid to discuss details of our proposals in Parliament. He ignored the fact that we have made available information about how the order-making powers under clauses 8 and 9 are intended to be used and, as has been acknowledged, we have produced a draft statutory instrument on the documents that employers will have to examine. I consider that to be most helpful of us, but it obviously passed by the hon. Gentleman's notice. He then referred to local councils, as did the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). He was exercised about Westminster council for some wholly charitable reason on which I compliment him.

Mr. Henderson: I am a resident.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is a resident, so of course he is worried.
The hon. Gentleman said that Westminster council was worried about our housing proposals. We need to determine the fears of local authorities, as we need to understand them. Westminster's concern, and I assume Camden's, involves the timing of the impact of the housing provisions. It is concerned about the time gap between the ending of benefit entitlement, which has come into force, and the ending of housing entitlement under the Bill. We regard those fears as unfounded because we have made it supremely clear that money will be available to cover unavoidable additional costs, but I emphasise that if we followed the route proposed in the new clauses and amendments and provided a consultation period, the clause would then increase the delay in aligning housing and benefit entitlement. That would worsen the position of Westminster and, presumably, Camden. If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about Westminster—I take it that he is—he should immediately rethink his support for the new clauses.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I am sure that the Minister understands that for Westminster—which was so busy selling off its council stock—and for Camden, it is not just a matter of housing people who are on the streets because they cannot claim housing benefit. There is also a problem in the private sector because of the Government's failure to consult. Private landlords are turning people out because they believe that those people will no longer be able to claim housing benefit, so will be unable to pay their rent. I refer the Minister to what I said earlier. Incredibly reliable sources are saying that more than 100 asylum seekers have nowhere to live other than the streets of London.

Miss Widdecombe: As I explained in some detail in Committee—as the hon. Lady did not serve on the Committee, she would not have heard me—when I was challenged several times about the effects of the Bill, there are already points at which we withdraw benefit not only from asylum seekers and people who sought leave to stay here under some other head, but from people who have long been settled here and who might be called the indigenous population. There are already points at which we withdraw benefit, yet it does not have the effects that are being described.

Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister acknowledge that it is not simply a matter of people losing benefit and being unable to pay their rent? Many local authorities are worried about their position under the Children Act 1989. When they have to decide how to keep a roof over children's heads, should they take them into care or—as the Children Act suggests—should they try to keep the family together, knowing that there will be no income to pay the rent?

Miss Widdecombe: We have acknowledged that there could be increased responsibilities under the Children Act. We are also discussing with local authorities how to address that. How local authorities respond to particular cases and decide whether a child is taken into care or whether another arrangement is made is a matter for them.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is a nice chap, but he is a Liberal and he suffers the same difficulty as all of that ilk—he is a victim of his own propaganda. He has heard so much ranting about the ill effects of the Bill that he started to believe it and rant it all out in turn.
I became curious, as I listened to several speeches, as to whether we were debating the substantive issues of clause 8 rather than the new clauses and amendments. As we shall debate clause 8 in some detail in respect of other amendments on which I understand that the Opposition have asked for a sizeable debate—we all look forward to that—I do not intend to go into detail now, as it would be repetitious.
The hon. Gentleman was unable to tell me how we should tackle the problem of employers deliberately taking on illegal employees, although what he said was quite interesting. He suggested that we should throw the whole burden on the employees and take action against them, never mind the employer. That is a most interesting position for one of his persuasion. I can see that the hon. Gentleman is dying for me to give way, and I feel obliged to do so.

Mr. Alton: I would not want the Minister to misrepresent me. I said that existing law already covers employees. In her estimation, how many employers are guilty of breaking the laws by employing people illegally? When she gives us the figures, as I hope that she now will, we shall know whether there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Miss Widdecombe: There were at least 10,000 cases of illegal working last year, and those were the ones that we found. Even if the hon. Gentleman believes that the ones that we found represent the whole case, it is obvious that there is a sizeable problem.
Perhaps I could deal with the hon. Gentleman's question about the burden on local authorities. The homelessness code of guidance for local authorities, to which they are obliged by law to have regard, already requires them to check the immigration status of homelessness applicants. It is an important point that I made in Committee, but the hon. Gentleman may have been away with his broken ankle in Liverpool and his very ill mother in Essex, as he was away for some time owing to that combination of circumstances. Since December 1994, the code has contained recommended screening procedures to achieve that without damaging

race relations. There is nothing new in the measure to place on local authorities a burden of checking that does not already exist.

Mr. Alton: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: If I give way to the hon. Gentleman now, it will be for the last time, and he will not get in on another point.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. If she says that she is giving me up for Lent, I shall be quite happy to accept that privation. I must press her further on the number of employers who were prosecuted last year. Will she confirm that the number was fewer than 15?

Miss Widdecombe: It would have been difficult to prosecute when we had not yet created the offence of employing an illegal immigrant. The hon. Gentleman asks a nonsensical question.
I shall quickly address the essence of the two new clauses and the amendments, which have not been much debated. The first proposition is that procedures that we have designed to be negative should be affirmative. The regulations introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to restrict benefit entitlement for persons from abroad were not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and neither are the immigration rules. I see no justification for picking orders under clauses 8 and 9, which are substantially lesser measures, to be specially subject to the affirmative procedure.
We are already consulting the Commission for Racial Equality, which has kindly offered to help us with drawing up guidance for employers on the avoidance of discriminatory recruitment practices. I share the aim of reducing, wherever possible, any adverse effect on race relations that the legislation might have by promoting discrimination. It is important that that does not happen.

6 pm

Mr. Keith Hill: Does the Minister share the concerns about the Bill's adverse effects on race relations that were expressed by the majority of organisations that responded to the illegal working proposals—in particular, those of the CRE? Is she aware of the evidence produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference in Paris a couple of years ago, showing—as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) demonstrated—that wherever such measures have been implemented, they have had an adverse effect on race relations? Does the Minister acknowledge the need to go further than merely consult on the terms of the documents and to measure the consequences of her proposals on race relations?

Miss Widdecombe: We are consulting the CRE because we acknowledge the genuineness of the concerns that have been expressed, and we shall draw up guidance precisely because we are anxious to avoid the effects that have been suggested. I have no reason to believe that, if that guidance is implemented, there will be the adverse effects suggested. If they were to show themselves, we would look to see what we could do to strengthen the guidance and practice.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Lady accused me of having a rant at Andrew Lansley. If there is one thing that the hon. Lady would recognise, it is a good rant. I make no apology for having a rant about Andrew Lansley, CBE and the things that he has written. I will have a rant before breakfast, before lunch, before tea and before dinner every day until the general election and beyond, if that is required to fight the Bill and its racist implications.
The Minister said that there was a lack of substance in my arguments and those of my hon. Friends, although I believe that comment was particularly directed at me. It ill behoves the hon. Lady to accuse the Opposition of a lack of substance when the Bill is no more than a skeleton enabling Bill to permit the Conservative party to campaign on a racist card from now until the general election. If the Minister wants more evidence, I shall be happy to give it.
The Bill does not specify the time limits for dealing with so-called fast-track applications from designated countries. It does not say which countries will be designated. Even at this stage, we do not know whether the list of designated countries produced in Committee is the final list. I understand from a newspaper report that other countries have been added. We do not know which documents employers will be required to check or the nature of the checks that they will be required to make on national insurance contributions. Neither do we know the resources that councils will be given to meet their housing obligations. We do not even know which persons will be covered by the Bill's provisions.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman proclaims the Opposition's ignorance to the world by listing a number of things that he does not know. The hon. Gentleman was in Committee—he was listening, and he knows nearly all the answers to those questions.

Mr. Henderson: I do not know the answers, and neither do my hon. Friends, because we have not been told. We shall have to wait for the Secretary of State for Social Security eventually to get around to producing an order before we have even a hint of the contents of the Bill's provisions.
The Minister said that the Bill is firm and fair in dealing with immigration rules. If that is so, why does not the hon. Lady prove that it is firm and fair, by accepting the amendments and consulting the various people who will be affected, before proceeding with a Bill that she knows contains little substance? I challenge the hon. Lady to do that. We are told that she is a conviction politician. If that is true, she will know that there is no substance to the Bill and that she will get the answers wrong if she does not consult. I challenge her to consult on the views of the CRE, employers, housing authorities and child benefit authorities.
The Government intend to charge on with the Bill regardless. We shall press the new clause to a vote because that is not good enough in any parliamentary democracy, particularly given this issue—which everyone in the House recognises is one of great sensitivity for many sections of the community.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 273.

Division No. 57]
[6.07 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Adams, Mrs Irene
Fatchett, Derek


Ainger, Nick
Faulds, Andrew


Allen, Graham
Fisher, Mark


Alton, David
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Galbraith, Sam


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John


Austin-Walker, John
George, Bruce


Barnes, Harry
Gerrard, Neil


Barron, Kevin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Battle, John
Godsiff, Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gordon, Mildred


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bennett, Andrew F
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Betts, Clive
Gunnell, John


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Hain, Peter


Blunkett, David
Hall, Mike


Boateng, Paul
Hanson, David


Bradley, Keith
Hardy, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harvey, Nick


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Henderson, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Heppell, John


Burden, Richard
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hodge, Margaret


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cann, Jamie
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Chidgey, David
Hoyle, Doug


Church, Judith
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clelland, David
Hutton, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Coffey, Ann
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cummings, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Keen, Alan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dafis, Cynog
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Denham, John
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Dixon, Don
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dobson, Frank
Llwyd, Elfyn


Donohoe, Brian H
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dowd, Jim
McAllion, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Ms Angela
McCartney, Ian


Eastham, Ken
Macdonald, Calum






McFall, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McKelvey, William
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


Maclennan, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


McMaster, Gordon
Rooney, Terry


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Salmond, Alex


Maddock, Diana
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Mandelson, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Simpson, Alan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Straw, Jack


Morley, Elliot
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Timms, Stephen


Mudie, George
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Paul
Trickett, Jon


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tyler, Paul


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Olner, Bill
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watson, Mike


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Pearson, Ian
Wicks, Malcolm


Pendry, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pike, Peter L
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pope, Greg
Wilson, Brian


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wise, Audrey


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray, Jimmy


Purchase, Ken
Wright, Dr Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Radice, Giles



Raynsford, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Reid, Dr John
Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.


Rendel, David





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Body, Sir Richard


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Booth, Hartley


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Bright, Sir Graham


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Browning, Mrs Angela


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butcher, John


Bates, Michael
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)





Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hendry, Charles


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
King, Rt Hon Tom


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, Sir David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Elletson, Harold
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Legg, Barry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fishburn, Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, Sir David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fry, Sir Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mates, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gill, Christopher
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gillan, Cheryl
Merchant, Piers


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mills, Iain


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nelson, Anthony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hargreaves, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Paice, James


Hawksley, Warren
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John






Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Streeter, Gary


Pawsey, James
Sweeney, Walter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sykes, John


Pickles, Eric
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thomason, Roy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Riddick, Graham
Thurnham, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Walden, George


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waterson, Nigel


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Whittingdale, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Soames, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Willetts, David


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Spink, Dr Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Spring, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sproat, Iain
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Simon Burns.


Stewart, Allan

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

VICTIMS OF TORTURE

'.—(l) Nothing in this Act shall apply to a person who has made a claim for asylum where a registered medical practitioner (within the meaning of the Medical Act 1983) has issued a certificate, in a form to be prescribed, stating in good faith that he is of the opinion that that person has been tortured.

(2) After section 12 of the 1993 Act the following section shall be inserted—

Victims of torture

12A. Nothing in this Act shall apply to a person who has made a claim for asylum where a registered medical practitioner (within the meaning of the Medical Act 1983) has issued a certificate, in a form to be prescribed, stating in good faith that he is of the opinion that that person has been tortured.".

(3) After section 1 of the 1971 Act the following section shall be inserted—

Victims of torture

1A. Nothing in this Act shall apply to a person who has made a claim for asylum where a registered medical practitioner (within the meaning of the Medical Act 1983) has issued a certificate, in a form to be prescribed, stating in good faith that he is of the opinion that that person has been tortured.".'.—[Mr. Alton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am grateful to those hon. Members from other parties who have added their names to the new clause, because that demonstrates the breadth of concern about victims of torture and the way they are treated. That concern extends to the attempt to have them excluded from the fast-track procedures, which is the purpose of new clause 5. The issue has excited interest during the passage of the Bill, and most of us have received letters about the treatment of victims of torture who have sought asylum in the United Kingdom. The issue is consistently raised by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, and that is why I have tabled new clause 5.
There is always a danger in debates about immigration of over-exaggeration, and expressions such as "being swamped" and "millions of people" are used. I wish to put the matter into perspective. During 1995, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture provided physical, psychological and practical help to approximately 1,600 survivors of torture from 65 countries. The great majority of those people were asylum seekers who had fled persecution, imprisonment and torture, and who had arrived in the United Kingdom to seek a place of safety. They had left everything behind, including families, homes and jobs.
It is impossible to rehabilitate survivors of torture if they are frightened and uncertain about whether they will be returned to their country of origin to face further persecution. The safety and welfare of those people, and anything that affects that, is therefore the paramount concern of organisations such as the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.
The foundation is a dispassionate, impartial body that has an extraordinarily good track record which is admired by hon. Members from all parties. It says that it is
extremely alarmed at the Government's decision to introduce this new legislation".
It claims that the legislation would
adversely affect asylum seekers' access to a fair and just determination procedure.
Who are the survivors of torture? Studies, including the Home Office's document "The Settlement of Refugees in Britain", which was published in 1995, confirm that torture victims are, first, people who did not want to be refugees. Secondly, the vast majority have left behind far more in terms of jobs, homes and futures than they will ever gain by coming to this country.
A debate of this kind should centre on justice, not numbers. We often lose sight of the scale of human suffering. I shall give an example from northern Cyprus of the type of people we are talking about. I shall quote Amnesty International and the American State Department, because their comments about Cyprus relate directly to my example. Amnesty International, in its 1995 report, described
the imprisonment of conscientious objectors to military service, documented cases of alleged ill-treatment and torture of detainees and the apparent absence of thorough investigation into these allegations.
The American State Department, in its country reports on human rights in 1994, said:
in both Turkish and Greek Cypriot territories, there were 'instances of police brutality."'


Those quotations are significant, because Cyprus now appears on the so-called designated list.
The example I wish to mention is a Cypriot opposition politician. In 1990 and 1992, he was put up as a candidate for Parliament. He was working on a federal solution to the Cyprus problems. He was arrested in 1992, and kept in the police station for four days. He was interrogated and accused of illegal activities. He was beaten, and suffered felaka with black plastic truncheons. His feet were swollen and very painful for three weeks, in spite of salt water baths. His daughters were beaten at school.
In October 1993, he fled to the United Kingdom with his family and applied for asylum at the airport. In 1995, his asylum application was refused, and he was deported. On his return to Cyprus, he attempted to leave and go to Turkey. At the airport, the civil police arrested him and took him away. Three police officers and another armed man interrogated him in a small room, and beat him severely on the back and shoulders.
I will not weary the House with all the details of what followed, but I shall quote the view of Dr. Gordon Barclay, who treated that man. Dr. Barclay is a senior fellow of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and a senior member of the British Association of Urological Surgeons. He said about the man in question:
After 16 days, he decided he must go to Turkey where he could hide. However, he was picked up at the airport and detained, interrogated and tortured. This included, he says, burning his back with heated iron rods. He has about 100 scars, which bear out his story, though the number and severity are stupendous. I could see no other explanation for them.
Dr. Barclay added:
His other complaints are those associated with severe post-traumatic stress syndrome still in an acute phase".
I have emphasised this case because, on 17 January, only a few days ago, the immigration and nationality department of Lunar house sent a letter to the individual concerned telling him that he was being deported from the United Kingdom. The letter was signed by Lynn Parsons of the asylum division.
I found the letter extraordinarily brutal, disingenuous and entirely lacking even in common courtesy, let alone compassion. An official who has probably never even met the man concerned, writing on behalf of the Secretary of State, who certainly had not met him, had this to say:
Taking into account your appalling lack of credibility the Secretary of State considers that … these wounds were inflicted at your request in an attempt to strengthen your claim.
We are talking about 100 scars on the man's back. The letter continues:
There is no evidence to suggest that North Cyprus is anything other than a democratic country with respect for human rights.
I have only recently mentioned the reports of Amnesty International and the American State Department.
6.30 pm
The letter then states:
He"—
the Secretary of State—
does not accept that your injuries were sustained in the manner that you claim. He is of the view that the claimed beating is all part of a cynical attempt to circumvent normal United Kingdom immigration rules and to secure your stay in this country.

I do not believe that anyone listening to the account—validated by an eminent doctor—that I have read would believe that anyone would go to such lengths, even if it were possible, to try to obtain the right to stay in the United Kingdom.
The letter adds:
As such, he places no weight on this alleged evidence. Overall the Secretary of State is of the view that your claim is a mixture of lies and embellishment. He places no weight on your claims and finds them completely lacking in credibility … Your application is now formally refused.
I have never read such a brutal and offensive letter from a Government official, who presumably feels that she can write with impunity and even approbation. It was sent to someone who has suffered in the manner that I have described.
I shall refer to one more case before I turn to the substance of the clause. It is the story of a Nigerian, a man called John. He is a Nigerian pastor. He was a Christian minister in Nigeria, as was his father. His father was critical of the Government's handling of oil deposits in the area, and the family was persecuted in consequence. John was arrested and beaten with whips and batons on many occasions between 1990 and 1992. He was accused of inciting people to oppose Government policy.
In December 1993, John was arrested while conducting a church service. He was arrested along with his mother, brother and sister, and almost everyone else in the church who had not already been shot. Almost unconscious from the beatings that he had received, he was stripped, handcuffed and beaten further with a whip, a metal rod and a chair leg. He was suspended by his wrists and beaten on his feet. The following day, he was brought into a room with his mother. Both of them were stripped and abused in front of each other. His interrogators then shot his mother in the legs. She collapsed bleeding, and was then killed in front of him. He was threatened with the same treatment.
In the days that followed, John was subjected to further torture, including being forced to sit on a broken bottle. He also had a large needle passed through him. There followed sexual torture. He eventually escaped detention through bribery. He was assisted in fleeing to the United Kingdom in exchange for a large sum of money, notwithstanding that he was a wanted man. A substantial reward was on offer for his capture.
John was escorted to London, where he was left after one month. He had no idea what to do about claiming asylum. He knew no one in the United Kingdom. After a while, he met people at a church, including other Nigerians and a lawyer, who helped him to apply for asylum.
Initially, the Home Office proposed to consider his case under the short procedure—that is central to the new clause. However, John found good legal advice from an experienced asylum lawyer, and support from the medical foundation. Following representations, the Home Office agreed that his case needed to be dealt with in more depth, including the submission of medical and psychiatric evidence.
John is obviously in a vulnerable and psychological state. He is being aared for in a special hospital. He will probably need surgery for his injuries. Without the benefit of legal advice and help from the foundation, it is likely that his case would have been dealt with rapidly, and he


would have been removed almost forthwith from the United Kingdom. It is most doubtful whether the full horror of what he had suffered would have emerged.
It took medical staff who worked with John considerable time to extract his story from him. Hon. Members, having heard his story, will understand the trauma and distress of anyone in such a situation, and appreciate the time it would take for someone to be able to talk about such an experience.
John's case and the north Cyprus one are not unique. Most people who flee for genuine reasons from countries with despotic and appalling regimes have had similar experiences. If people like John are sent out on the first plane under the fast-track procedures, it will be a crime against humanity and manifestly against the spirit of the 1951 convention, to which we all subscribe and adhere.
I shall take up one of the arguments that has been deployed by Home Office officials against the acceptance of the new clause. It is one of the most risible, ridiculous and desperate arguments that I have ever heard put to Members of this place. It has been suggested that, because people might inflict injury on themselves, the provisions of the new clause could be abused by those seeking to enter the United Kingdom.
I took the trouble to obtain a statement from Professor Bernard Knight, CBE, MD, BCh, MRCP, FRCPath, DMJ, barrister, who has 41 years of experience as a pathologist. He is a Home Office pathologist. He has spent 37 years in full-time forensic medicine, and has published articles in journals and textbooks. The professor says that, although it is impossible always to be certain about a single injury, most self-inflicted injuries are instantly recognisable by an experienced medical observer. He wrote:
Self-inflicted injury, either for deliberate gain of some type or from psychiatric or emotional disturbance, usually has a well-recognised pattern which can be distinguished by experienced medical examiners. Self-inflicted injury tends to be repetitive, superficial and placed in areas easily accessible, and usually avoids vital structures.
I remind the House of the case of the northern Cypriot who is to be deported as a result of a decision taken by the Home Office. He has 100 scars on his back. We should all be deeply concerned about the suggestion that he inflicted his wounds on himself to remain in the United Kingdom, and that people believed that it was possible to do anything like that.
I am not proposing an open door. I am saying that there should be in place a system that accepts the United Kingdom's moral and international obligations—in other words, a just system that prevents the survivors of torture and repression from being returned to face further imprisonment and even death.
I am grateful to hon. Members from all parties who have supported the new clause. It is not a partisan proposal. I therefore hope that it will be possible for its terms to be incorporated in the Bill. If there are flaws in its wording and the Minister says that it is defective in some respects, I ask the Government at least to accept the principle that lies behind it. We can always ensure that a similar new clause is introduced in another place. My fear is that Ministers will not even accept the principle, on which I hope hon. Members will concentrate their remarks.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has

performed a real service to the House by bringing this important issue before us. When he asked me whether I would support and sign his new clause, I gladly did so, not because I thought it was necessarily a model of parliamentary draftmanship—I am quite prepared to accept, as is he, that it may well be deficient in that respect—but because it is an important issue.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State, that one occasionally comes across a group of people who are manifestly deserving of the House's concern and—I shall use the word—compassion. I shall give an analogy.
Some years ago, I was involved, along with hon. Members from both sides of the House, in the campaign to give proper aid to haemophiliacs who had contracted the AIDS virus as a result of transfusions. The Prime Minister responded to that campaign within a few days of his taking that office. That particularly deserving group of people were singled out, very properly, and given help, and I doubt whether any hon. Member thought that that was a wrong decision.
This evening, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has pointed to another group of people who are especially deserving. Torture is a most horrible crime. To inflict physical and mental torment on another human being who is in one's charge is as despicable a thing as one can possibly do. We must, however, reluctantly accept that there are all too many countries in the world where torture is an almost everyday occurrence. We have to accept that there are regimes that are so odious and so precarious that they feel they must inflict suffering on those who express opposition to their diktats.
This century has been defiled by those who have behaved with barbarity towards their fellows. We are within days of celebrating the 50th anniversary of marking the holocaust, and I do not need to dwell or expand on that. During the past few years, I have on occasion, as have others, brought to hon. Members' attention the appalling suffering that has been inflicted on people in the former Yugoslavia. As we speak, a war crimes tribunal is quite rightly seeking to prosecute those who are guilty of those crimes.
Anyone who flees to this country and who has been a victim of torture deserves every possible help and assistance. I do not for a moment think that my hon. Friend the Minister would dissent from a word that I have said. Of course I accept that she has a difficult job, as do her colleagues, in drawing up rules that police the system and try to ensure that it is not abused. However, I would rather that the system were abused by one perverse individual who had mutilated himself—I am prepared to concede that there could be such individuals—than that someone who had been tortured were sent back to further torture or torment. I believe that there are occasions when one must give the benefit of the doubt.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill spoke of justice. I was reminded of an artist friend of mine who, approached by the husband of the sitter, was asked, "I hope you will do my wife justice." "No," he said, "it is not justice she needs: it is mercy." That is really what we are talking about this evening: showing mercy to those who have suffered and who are, perhaps above all others, incapable of making rational decisions and following rules in the wake of their suffering.
I should tell the Minister that I understand what lies behind this Bill. I have not sought to inflict my presence on the House during its discussion so far, because I know


that it is a difficult problem. I understand that there are those who seek to abuse the system, and I know that that understandably arouses feelings of anger in many parts of the country, particularly among our own countrymen and countrywomen who are among the poorest. I know all that. However, we are speaking of a small group of people—the hon. Member for Mossley Hill sought to quantify it, and said he thought that it was about 1,600.
6.45 pm
This is a great country. This is a country that can afford to pay the price of greatness. We cannot and we must not turn anyone away from our shores if there are reasonable grounds to think that his story of torture is true. Yes, perhaps the odd rogue will stay as a result, but I would far rather that than that the man with the 100 lashes or the 100 stripes be sent back.
I thought that the letter read out by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was incredibly heartless. No civilised Department of State in any civilised country should allow any official to write such a letter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will obtain the letter, see the official and deal appropriately—as only she knows how, because she is a formidable woman—with him or her. Nobody should write such things in the name of our Government.
I shall conclude, because I do not wish to detain the House further, by saying that this new clause is about a small group of people for whom we must do everything to give them the benefit of the doubt. Our country has a proud tradition of helping those who have fled from persecution. No group is more deserving of help than that which comprises the victims of torture.

Mr. Madden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on his new clause, and agree thoroughly with what the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said. I take issue with him, however, on the letter that was written by the Home Office official, to which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has drawn the attention of hon. Members. The letter was not written by a maverick official expressing personal views; the official was reflecting well-founded Home Office policy on asylum issues.
I note from the letter, which the hon. Gentleman has kindly passed to me, that it was the Cypriot gentleman's second application. He made his first application on arrival in the United Kingdom, in 1993, with his wife and children. He made his second application in October last year. I ask the Minister of State not only to rebuke the official for writing that terrible letter, but to give us an undertaking now that, whatever has happened in the past, the Minister will ensure that this applicant has a right of appeal to an independent body so that his case can be independently assessed. I think that that is the minimum undertaking that the Minister can give.
The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill would ensure that
Nothing in this Act shall apply to a person who has made a claim for asylum where a registered medical practitioner … has issued a certificate, in a form to be prescribed, stating in good faith that he is of the opinion that that person has been tortured.
As the hon. Members for Mossley Hill and for South Staffordshire have already said, it is clear that the number of tortured persons who seek asylum in this country in any

year is extremely small. For the sake of our reputation, or what is left of our reputation, as a country in which to seek asylum, the least that the House can do is to accept the new clause.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred to designation. Hon. Members will be aware that clause 1
empowers the Secretary of State to designate by order countries where there is in general no serious risk of persecution. It makes the special appeals procedure for claims without foundation available for a wider range of claims, including those by nationals of designated countries.
The purpose of the new clause is to give to those who are clearly victims of torture an exemption from that procedure.
A restricted letter was written on 27 October by the Foreign Secretary and circulated to all parts of the Foreign Office and overseas posts. In that letter he stated:
UK press has speculated on possible introduction of a 'white list'. This would require primary legislation … Cannot anticipate announcement. If it were adopted, careful account would need to be taken of human rights and other relevant conditions in a country before it could be listed … However, Home Office has been piloting since May a short procedure for deciding straightforward asylum claims likely to prove unfounded. Procedure limited to selected cases from nationalities which experience has shown generate very high refusal rates … These are Ghana, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Romania and Poland. Consideration being given to possible expansion to other nationalities.
I should like the Under-Secretary to explain why Nigerian nationals are included as part of the short procedure, given the gross human rights violations in that country, which are of concern to many hon. Members, and which have led to international action being taken by Her Majesty's Government and other European Union countries.
Under the heading
Background—Restricted—Not For Use
the letter of 27 October reveals:
The countries listed below, which are the leading nations giving rise to large numbers of unfounded asylum claims, are candidates for a designated list. We agree with the Home Office that countries nos. 1–5 may be designated".
Those countries are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, Poland and Romania. The letter continues:
we have yet to come to a decision on the others.
Those are Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Tanzania.
There are no plans (as suggested in the UK press) to designate Nigeria, Sri Lanka or Algeria.
We now know as a result of the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading in December that the countries to be designated by order are the first five to which I referred, plus India and Pakistan. I would like to know from the Under-Secretary, if he can desist from chatting to the Whip on the Front Bench, what has happened since 27 October, when the Foreign Secretary wrote:
we have yet to come to a decision on the others.
The others specifically included are Pakistan and India. That decision enabled the Home Secretary to announce in December that India and Pakistan would be part of the designated list.
I hope that the discussion in which the Under-Secretary seems now to be engaged with the Minister of State will enable him to reply to the specific questions that I am now asking. I would very much like to know from him whether the Foreign Secretary communicated with the Home Secretary before December that he supported the


inclusion of Pakistan and India in the proposed designated list. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to say that he accepts the new clause. It is an extremely important safeguard to the victims of torture and will ensure that they are not subject to certain provisions, including those on designation.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): This subject is one which any citizen of a rich, comfortable country must find difficult. Whether people come here as economic migrants from countries where they do not get enough to eat and where their children and families are riddled with worms, or whether they come as asylum seekers in the genuine sense of the word, to send any of them back is an unattractive thing to do. We realise, however, that we live in the real world, and however much an individual conjures up our compassion, the national response must be to limit numbers.
There is absolutely no doubt that people who have been subjected to torture are in a different category from other asylum seekers. I was pleased to put my name to the new clause, although I am not particularly enamoured of the idea that any medical practitioner should be able to sign a certificate. We know that some practitioners are less careful, less scrupulous and busier than others and would soon be identified as the ones to whom asylum seekers may go. I believe, however, that we must have an unequivocal statement from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that this country will not send back to the likelihood of further torture people who, when they came here, had, in all probability, already been tortured. I do not mind how the thing is arranged, provided that it is arranged with that result.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has asked for that arrangement to be included in a clause in the Bill because all of us are uneasy about the effect on conscientious, devoted civil servants of what I would describe as battle fatigue. When they have seen enough cases of people trying to pull the wool over their eyes, or people who they think are trying to do that, they become battle-hardened and cynical, and less careful. When people who have suffered torture come up against an official whose compassion barrier has been raised because he has been in that post a long time, one ends up with the kind of story that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill told us about the man from north Cyprus. For that reason, the inclusion of an automatic safeguard in the Bill becomes very attractive.
I urge upon Ministers that hon. Members must be assured that where there is a reasonable belief that someone has suffered torture, he or she will not be sent back. If we can have that assurance, I will not feel wedded to the wording of the new clause.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and West Devon): I am honoured to support the new clause and am very glad to be on the Benches of the hon. Members who sponsored it, and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and other hon. Members.
I am not at all surprised by the harshness of the phrases in the letters that have been read out, because they were taken from paragraphs in the reasons for refusal letter—

the standard refusal letter. It is relatively new and it has resulted in very harsh statements. Indeed, as the paperwork states:
Judicious use of stock paragraphs greatly cuts down on the time taken to prepare rfrs. Therefore, increased use of stock paragraphs across the Division is highly desirable in all but the most unusual of cases.
I shall not detain the House by reading out the stock paragraphs, but they have a harsh and sharp result, as my hon. Friend stated.
7 pm
I am concerned about the decisions that are made from those paragraphs. In one case, an African had been beaten by Government employees for many months in his country of origin, which is a place of massive instability and successive revolutions. His senior family members had been killed because they supported the wrong side for a time. The Home Secretary, in his refusal of this man's claim for asylum, stated:
During the period of alleged torture, when not in detention you made no attempt to approach the authorities in your country. You have stated that you did not believe that the authorities could have provided a solution to the problem. However, the Secretary of State believes that in the light of facts you have provided it would have been an appropriate course of action for you to seek assistance from the authorities.
The futility of that statement is beyond belief. If Government employees are beating somebody, what possible hope is there that that Government would assist that person? The Secretary of State's lack of understanding and his sheer determination to keep these people out concerns me more than anything. We are talking about a victim of torture, who managed to flee to a second African country—another country of turmoil, with a dreadful track record on human rights, as the United Kingdom well knows. The Secretary of State wrote:
The Secretary of State knows that on your arrival … you did not claim asylum there. The Secretary of State considers this is not consistent with someone in need of international protection, whom he believes would apply for asylum at the earliest opportunity.
How can one possibly apply for asylum in a country from which other people are already fleeing? The Secretary of State does not want these people here at all. That is the key to everything.
The letter continued:
Therefore the Secretary of State considers that you have failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution as defined by the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to Status of Refugees.
That was because he did not seek assistance from the authorities who were torturing him, and because he did not seek asylum in a second country. The only country that he could reach already has a revolution and has had a history of revolutions.
In a letter to another asylum seeker, the Secretary of State remarked that there had been a very high proportion of unmeritorious applications. If it was an unmeritorious application, this is indeed "Alice in Wonderland". It was an application from somebody in the greatest need. The Secretary of State made the point that the applicant had not sought asylum in another country, but the Secretary of State simply does not understand that a number of countries are infinitely more open-hearted than the United Kingdom in their acceptance of people in trouble.
Some 2.5 million displaced people are in Iran, but they do not apply for asylum. Iran cannot give 2.5 million people asylum, because of all the rights and obligations that it would create for those people and Iran, but it gives them shelter, house room, ability to work, food and clothing—the basics of life. Those people will not get asylum there, so for the Secretary of State to refuse an application because somebody had not applied for asylum in another country or in a country like Iran, which accepts vast numbers of displaced people and refugees, is unbelievable.
Iraq was branded a legitimate trading partner in 1988—the same time as Saddam Hussein was bombing the Kurds with chemical weapons. Presumably, Iraq would be on the white list now. A torture victim, Dr. Hassan, is a friend of mine. He was the doctor who certified death after the executions that were carried out regularly on hundreds of people every week in Al Gahraib prison, where the Kuwaiti prisoners of war are kept. After that, he was placed in a factory, to look after the health of the people creating chemical weapons. They were known to have high health needs. While there, he saw British-labelled supplies coming in to create the chemical weapons. His purpose was to maintain the health of the staff. Then, because he was not seen to be sufficiently sound, he was tortured very heavily for two years.
It took Dr. Hassan a long time to admit that he had been tortured. He was a surgeon, a man of high professional ability, and the feeling of degradation, the inarticulacy that followed that degradation, the shame at having been physically violated in every conceivable corner of his body and being unable to withstand it on his terms, had stopped him talking about it for a very long time. He felt a man apart. He and others whom I know who have been tortured are indeed a race apart. They are a race of the strongest and most wonderful men and women alive today. To put such people on the fast-track system and assume that when they turn up at Heathrow or another airport they can unload all of that immediately is just plain cruel.
I feel ashamed that we should consider enacting the proposed legislation. I beg the Minister to consider the plight of the victims of torture. Several hon. Members have read out the treatment that those victims are receiving under the current legislation. The Bill will worsen their situation dramatically.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): There is no doubt whatever that this is an issue of great concern. I listened with particular attention to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who expressed deep feelings about humanitarianism. I hope that I will be allowed an opportunity to explain why I believe that this country's position is an honourable one, and why our application of humanitarianism is second to none.
Although comparatively, in percentage terms, few of the applications for asylum that are made to this country meet the criteria that we apply in accordance with the United Nations convention of 1951, we have—this is unusual to this country in many respects—exceptional leave to remain, which takes care of a great number of

cases that would otherwise not meet the basic criteria, which are used where we believe that there are compassionate or humanitarian reasons to allow someone to remain in this country.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kirkhope: Not at the moment.
That is very important.
We all know how appalling torture is when it is used on an institutional basis by a nation or a particular regime or when it is used by individuals or criminals against others. Who could forget the appalling television pictures of our RAF service men who had been tortured by the Iraqis after capture and were paraded in front of our screens for political effect? No one could ever forget that, and no one ever should.
If we did not adopt a particular approach to victims of torture, I should be able to recommend further consideration of the proposals advanced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). However, we are signatories not only to the 1951 United Nations convention—which we apply properly and fairly to asylum applicants—but to article 3 of the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which was concluded in 1981.
The parts of the convention that we observe include the provision that
No State Party shall expel, return … or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
There may be circumstances in which a person would face torture if returned to his country of origin, but would not have a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or a political opinion. In those circumstances, the United Kingdom meets its international obligations by granting exceptional leave to remain.

Miss Nicholson: I understand that those with exceptional leave to remain will indeed be at risk if the Bill is passed unchanged, under a number of clauses. Will the Minister clarify that?

Mr. Kirkhope: I can state categorically that that is not the case. I am proud that this country is able to provide such leave, and will exercise its powers to do so when there is evidence to suggest that applicants would be tortured if they were returned to their countries. Let me give a clear undertaking—virtually repeating the article that I quoted a moment ago—that we will not send people back when there is a reasonable belief that they will face torture. I hope that that helps my hon. Friends, and others who have raised the question.
Let me make a technical point. If new clause 5 were accepted, it would have the direct result of putting all alleged victims of torture entirely outside normal immigration control—not just in respect of the Bill, but in respect of the Immigration Act 1971 and the rules attached to it and the Asylum and Immigration Appeals


Act 1993. In effect, such people would have the same rights immediately, on a medical certificate, as any British national.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I accept—as I did earlier—that there may be deficiencies in the new clause, but people are very worried. Will my hon. Friend undertake to receive those who have spoken tonight, and who are acutely concerned, and is he prepared to consider an amendment in the other place if the Bill does not cover torture victims adequately?

Mr. Kirkhope: Having clearly set out the humanitarian position that we already hold and intend to continue, I see no reason why we should not consider representations of the kind that my hon. Friend suggests. Indeed, I can say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that we should be pleased to do so.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's response to the first part of my question, but he did not deal with the second part. I asked whether, in consultation with his ministerial colleagues, he would be prepared to table an amendment in the other place if it were felt that victims of torture were not covered adequately.

Mr. Kirkhope: It would be up to my hon. Friend to convince us of the need. [Interruption.] I consider that a reasonable proposal, and, having set out the other circumstances, I think it fair to introduce such a tiny caveat.
We all know what we want to achieve. We all deprecate torture, and want to deal with it. We in the Government believe that we are dealing with it, but, if my hon. Friend and others persuade us otherwise, the natural conclusion will of course be the consideration of an amendment in the other place. I am happy to give that undertaking, along with the one that I have already given. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Mossley Hill not to press the motion to a vote: if he does not, it will help everyone who is concerned with this difficult matter.

Mr. Alton: With the leave of the House, Madam Speaker.
I am grateful to the Minister for the tone that he adopted. The debate has demonstrated that there is no monopoly on compassion in any part of the House: it has united opinion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House made eloquent speeches in support of the principles enshrined in the convention. There is no doubt that we all subscribe to those principles; the question is how they are implemented.
In fact, we should be concerned not about the Bill but about existing Home Office practices. When questioned directly by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) about what would happen in a specific case, the Minister was unable to reply; but a man had been tortured, and had 100 lacerations on his back. According to a Home Office letter dated 17 January, that was
all part of a cynical attempt to circumvent normal United Kingdom immigration rules".
In sharp contradiction is the view of a senior fellow of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland—not just a run-of-the-mill GP hired by an immigration advisory group. Dr. Gordon Barclay stated that the man had

100 scars, which bear out his story, though the number and severity are stupendous. I could see no other explanation for them.
His other complaints are those associated with severe post-traumatic stress syndrome still in an acute phase".
Cases of that kind are already manifesting themselves, even before the enactment of the Bill. I do not think that it is enough to say that we hold to a reasonable belief—a phrase used earlier by the Minister; we need more than assurances on the Floor of the House. Although I hope that there will be a debate in the other place and that amendments will be passed there, we should stress the importance of the principle. I believe that that can best be achieved by a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 279.

Division No. 58]
[7.18 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Jean


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cousins, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Cox, Tom


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Roseanna


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dafis, Cynog


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Chris (L'boro & S'worth)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Austin-Walker, John
Denham, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Donohoe, Brian H


Beggs, Roy
Dowd, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bell, Stuart
Eagle, Ms Angela


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, Andrew F
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Benton, Joe
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Faulds, Andrew


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Reid, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Fisher, Mark


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foulkes, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Byers, Stephen
Garrett, John


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell-Savours, D N
Godsiff, Roger


Cann, Jamie
Golding, Mrs Llin


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Gordon, Mildred


Chidgey, David
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Church, Judith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gunnell, John


Clelland, David
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hall, Mike


Coffey, Ann
Hanson, David


Cohen, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harvey, Nick


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Henderson, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith (Streatham)






Hinchliffe, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hodge, Margaret
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Murphy, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Olner, Bill


Hoyle, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pendry, Tom


Hume, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hutton, John
Pike, Peter L


Illsley, Eric
Pope, Greg


Ingram, Adam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Prentice, Bridget (Lev'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rendel, David


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jowell, Tessa
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Keen, Alan
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Salmond, Alex


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Short, Clare


Loyden, Eddie
Simpson, Alan


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


McKelvey, William
Shape, Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


McMaster, Gordon
Spellar, John


McNamara, Kevin
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


MacShane, Denis
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Maddock, Diana
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Maginnis, Ken
Straw, Jack


Mahon, Alice
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Timms, Stephen


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Tipping, Paddy


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Touhig, Don


Martlew, Eric
Trickett, Jon


Maxton, John
Trimble, David


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wallace, James


Milburn, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Andrew
Watson, Mike


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Welsh, Andrew


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Wicks, Malcolm


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wigley, Dafydd


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Winnick, David





Wise, Audrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy
Ms Liz Lynne and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Wright, Dr Tony





NOES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dykes, Hugh


Amess, David
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Elletson, Harold


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ashby, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, David (Bour"mouth E)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evennett, David


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bates, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Body, Sir Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Booth, Hartley
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Fry, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gallie, Phil


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright, Sir Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, Sir John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Churchill, Mr
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Congdon, David
Hendry, Charles


Conway, Derek
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Couchman, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dover, Den
Jenkin, Bernard


Duncan, Alan
Jessel, Toby






Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Sir Roger
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Whittingdale, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Rathbone, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Richards, Rod
Tellers for the Noes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Robathan, Andrew

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

DEPORTATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONAL SECURITY, ETC.

'.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section—
(a) in section 15 of the 1971 Act (appeals in respect of deportation orders), subsection (3) shall be omitted; and
(b) in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act (appeals to special adjudicators: exception for national security), for the words "(3)(a) and (b)" there shall be substituted the words "(3)(b)".

(2) This section shall, from its coming into effect, apply in relation to entrants or others arriving in the United Kingdom at any date whether before or after it comes into effect.

(3) After the coming into effect of this section, anything done under the relevant provisions of the 1971 Act or the 1993 Act shall be treated as if done under those provisions as they are amended by this section.'.—[Mr. Madden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Madden: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 56, in schedule 3, page 12, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 15(3).'

Mr. Madden: I understand that my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) want to contribute to this short debate.
The new clause deals with the situation in which the authorities seek to deport individuals lawfully from the United Kingdom on grounds of national security, of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for other reasons of a political nature. It does not prevent the authorities from deporting such individuals for national security reasons, but it would give those individuals a full right of appeal before the immigration appeals authority.
At present, individuals who are proceeded against on national security grounds do not have an appeal or anything like it. Instead, there is a procedure before an advisory panel—the so-called three wise men—and individuals are not entitled to legal representation or to cross-examine witnesses against them. The decision of the panel is not disclosed to those facing deportation and it is not binding on the Home Secretary.
It is not surprising that that procedure has been widely criticised, not least during the Gulf crisis when many students were taken into custody only to be released on the ending of hostilities, at a time when it might have been thought that Iraq would be most keen to secure vengeance. No other allied country took such measures.
When the Immigration Act 1971 was first introduced, there was a procedure for dealing with security cases before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Although it lacked certain procedural safeguards, it had a good deal to commend it. The present situation does not. Even so, that procedure attracted considerable criticism from those concerned with the rights of the individual. Perversely, that concern was met by the introduction of the present procedure, which is modelled on that applicable to civil servants whose loyalty is in doubt.
The private reasoning of Ministers in immigration cases is under criticism at present, particularly in two cases—that of the Saudi dissident Dr. al-Masari, in which


Ministers' private reasoning has become public knowledge, and that of Karamjit Singh Chahal, a Sikh who has now been detained for a period equal to that for a sentence of murder, although he is held without conviction, charge or any detailed knowledge of the allegations against him.
Mr. Chahal's case is set out in early-day motion 377 and I am sure that hon. Members will be dismayed to know that he has been detained in Bedford prison for more than 2,000 days. His case is to come before the European Court of Human Rights next month. I hope that, if the court finds in his favour—I am cautiously optimistic that it will—the Home Secretary will act promptly and positively. I also hope that the Home Secretary will release Mr. Chahal temporarily, so that he can rejoin his wife and two children before the findings of the courts are made known.
The proposals in new clause 6 are by no means unusual. Acceptable procedures that meet the concerns that I outlined are employed by a number of countries in national security cases. For example, the Canadian system has been found to be extremely satisfactory by the Government and those representing detainees. I very much hope that the Home Office will seriously consider the suggestions that I have proposed in the new clause.

Mr. Winnick: I support the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) made a powerful case for it.
I have a constituency interest. My constituent, Mr. Raghbir Singh, has been held in prison in Birmingham for a year. As in all such cases, as my hon. Friend said, the difficulty arises because no charges of any kind are made. The Home Secretary—obviously, I accept that he was acting on advice—made an order that Mr. Singh's presence in the United Kingdom was not conducive to the public good on grounds of security. The reason for the order was that Mr. Singh was involved in terrorism. I cannot possibly know whether that is so. My constituent strongly denies any involvement and says that the journal that he edited in the Sikh community argued against terrorism.
I do not have to emphasise any more than my hon. Friends my strenuous opposition to all forms of terrorism—not only the curse of terrorism that we have suffered for 25 years, which has tragically been resumed, conducted by the IRA in Northern Ireland and at the moment on the mainland, but other forms of terrorism, wherever they are—in the middle east or on the Indian sub-continent.
I am not here to act as an apologist for terrorism, nor do I want to do so—neither do my hon. Friends—and I see that the Minister accepts that, but let us work on the possible assumption that Mr. Singh is telling the truth. It is just possible that, whatever advice was given to the Home Secretary, admittedly in good faith—we live in a democracy—information was given for malicious reasons. Clearly, of course, the Home Secretary's advisers would not have done so, but they might have been given false and misleading information.
Therefore, if one works for the moment on that assumption, one can imagine the injustice that is done to someone such as Raghbir Singh. He maintains that the

information is not correct and that he is not, and never has been, involved in terrorism. He has been taken away from his home, his wife and his children; he has been locked up in prison without any charges; and he cannot put his case in a court of law. That is a glaring injustice and, inevitably, there are strong feelings about that case.
Raghbir Singh has been in the United Kingdom lawfully since 1980, he is married and he has two young children. His wife came to the United Kingdom when she was three, and she is also a United Kingdom citizen. I took a number of my hon. Friends to see the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who was good enough to see us about this case. There was a press conference after the meeting, and the two children thought that their father was going to be released from prison—which is understandable considering their ages.
If it is said, "Well, someone is bound to deny it. How many people deny the charges against them when charged or even convicted?", I will have to accept it. I have already stated that the advice given to the Home Secretary may be right, but I bear in mind my constituent's strenuous denial. In addition, the case has aroused strong feelings in the Sikh community. It is difficult to believe that those strong feelings—which have been expressed to a number of Members of Parliament on both sides—arise because of any sympathy towards terrorism.
I accept that some in the Sikh community may be protesting because they believe in acts of violence to create a separate state in India, but the overwhelming majority of that community is opposed to terrorism—whatever views they may have about a separate state—and they do not believe in violence or in killing to achieve that objective. They are protesting very loudly on behalf of Raghbir Singh, as I am sure the Home Office is aware.
If the new clause were accepted, my constituent would have an opportunity to put his case in a proper manner, through lawyers, to demonstrate his innocence. The judicial authorities would then decide one way or the other. Raghbir Singh has a right of appeal at the moment, but it is restricted—it is to a panel which decides purely and simply on grounds of security; it is not like a court of law, nor is it meant to be.
I have raised this case a number of times over the past 12 months because I feel that if Raghbir Singh is not guilty of any form of terrorism—as I understand it, he has not been accused of any form of terrorism in the United Kingdom—a great injustice has been done to him. If he is guilty or has been involved in some way, despite his denial, then all the more reason for him to put his case to a court of law and to let the matter be decided as it should be in a democracy.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I support the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh. I say to the Minister of State in all sincerity that my constituents know my views about using violence to achieve political ends. They do not bother to lobby me because they know that my views have been consistent over the years. Many of my constituents have worked with Raghbir Singh—my constituency is close to the constituency of Walsall, North—and I have difficulty explaining to them the system of British justice: that he is in prison without a charge that he knows about and that he is able to answer.
I remember when the previous Labour Government used legislation such as this—although, even then, questions were raised. Such legislation does not seem to be used in many other countries. I fully accept that one has to be careful when bringing the politics of the sub-continent into this country. I do not know whether Raghbir Singh is guilty or innocent, nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North.
Our cause is slightly different—we want justice to be done openly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West has said that the appeal process requires more openness than exists at present. I accept that security cases cannot be completely open, such as in a magistrates court—and I am not so stupid as to ask for that—but they require more openness than exists at present.
If such cases were more open, people such as me could answer the questions of the family, friends and supporters of a person such as Raghbir Singh and say that the British justice system is fair. Some people have told me that they are in this country because it is supposed to be fairer than the one that they left. We have difficulty in justifying that cause. I hope that the Minister, while probably not wishing to accept the clause, will respond to the spirit of it and give the families and those incarcerated—without a genuine right to put their case openly—some kind of hope that they will not be locked up for ever and forgotten, without any form of redress or even knowing the charges against them.

Miss Widdecombe: I endorse the remarks of the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who disclaimed any interest in terrorism and said that their support for the constituent in question did not indicate any support for his alleged activities. That is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) in proposing the new clause, but I am afraid that I must vigorously resist it.
The present system—whereby an individual subject to deportation action on national security grounds is entitled to make representations against that decision to the three advisers—allows for the protection of delicate sources of intelligence in a way that an open appeal to the independent appellate authorities would not. The hon. Member for Perry Barr acknowledged that it would be impossible for an ordinary system to determine appeals of this magnitude.
The Home Secretary's power to deport is used sparingly and decisions are taken only after careful scrutiny of all the circumstances of an individual's case. A person subject to deportation at the personal direction of the Home Secretary is already entitled to make representations to the independent panel of advisers. That provides a full opportunity for the person concerned to state his case. No deportation order is signed until the panel's advice has been received and properly considered.
In cases involving national security, there is often a need to protect delicate sources of intelligence and to consider and to analyse information that it would not be appropriate to disclose at an immigration appeal hearing. The new clause would remove this necessary protection of a carefully selected panel to receive and consider such information. I cannot find a justification for amending the

legislation along those lines. Indeed, the need for such a procedure was accepted by the Court of Appeal in the case of Cheblak, in which Lord Donaldson said:
That a prospective detainee is not entitled to be given the fullest particulars of what is alleged against him would, in other circumstances, undoubtedly be objectionable as constituting a denial of natural justice. But natural justice has to take account of realities and something which would otherwise constitute a breach is not to be so considered if it is unavoidable.
Two cases have been mentioned—I do not want to go into details because, as hon. Members will be aware, one of the cases is before the courts and the other could be. Mr. Chahal's deportation has been ordered because of his involvement in terrorism in the United Kingdom and abroad. The Home Secretary is fully satisfied that Mr. Chahal's deportation would be in the interests of national security and would contribute to the fight against international terrorism.
Mr. Chahal has been refused asylum in the United Kingdom. It is not considered that he has demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in India under the terms of the United Nations convention. The important legal issues raised in last year's report on Mr. Chahal's case by the European Commission of Human Rights have been carefully considered, and the Government will now argue their case robustly at the European Court of Human Rights. But Mr. Chahal will not be removed from the United Kingdom until a decision has been received from the European Court. In the meantime, he will remain in detention for the reasons that I have given. Against that background, it would not be right to order his release.
The case has already had protracted proceedings before the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. The Government have referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights following the finding, on points of issue, by the European Commission of Human Rights.
We are fully satisfied that Raghbir Singh's deportation would be conducive to the public good for reasons of national security. We believe that it would contribute to the fight against international terrorism. The decision to initiate deportation action against Mr. Singh was taken only after the most detailed consideration of all the circumstances of his case.
I can assure the House that Mr. Singh is being deported not because of views that he may have expressed as a newspaper editor but because of his involvement in terrorism. He is not a prisoner of conscience. He is detained under powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971. Given the reasons for his proposed deportation, we cannot order his release. He has been served with notice of intention to deport. He has claimed asylum and the application must be considered. For reasons that I have explained, it would not be right to release him while the application is being considered. He is fully entitled to make representations against his proposed deportation to the independent advisory panel, which has been appointed for that purpose.

Mr. Winnick: So that there should not be any misunderstanding, may I say that it was not part of my argument to claim that the order was made to deport Mr. Singh because he argues for a separate state in India? The essence of my argument is that the order was made because of his alleged involvement in terrorism, which he


strenuously denies. I do not know whether he is guilty, but I think that his case should, in a democracy, go to a court of law to be decided.

Miss Widdecombe: I fully accept that the hon. Gentleman is not prejudging Mr. Singh's case, but he has the right to go to the independent panel, where his case will be fully considered and properly analysed. I have given the reasons why I do not think that his case can go to a normal court and why similar cases should not go to a normal court. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Bradford, West to withdraw his new clause. Otherwise, I shall have to urge the House to resist it.

Mr. Madden: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF SPECIAL APPEALS PROCEDURE

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—

'() the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below," shall cease to have effect;'.

No. 28, in page 1, line 15, after 'sub-paragraph' insert '(2),'.

No. 29, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'sub-paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraphs (2) and'.

No. 30, in page 1, line 18, leave out '(3)' and insert '(2)'.—[Miss Widdecombe]

Mr. Alton: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 1, line 18, after 'territory', insert
'(which is not a country or territory listed in the Appendix to this Schedule)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
'(5) After sub-paragraph (6) of that paragraph there shall be added the following sub-paragraphs—
(7) The Appendix to this Schedule may be amended by order made by statutory instrument.
(8) An order made under sub-paragraph (7) above shall—
(a) if its purpose is to add a country or territory to those listed in the Appendix to this Schedule, be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; or
(b) if its purpose is to remove a country or territory from those listed in the Appendix to this Schedule, be laid before Parliament in draft and be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.".'.
No. 21, in schedule 2, page 11, line 45, at end insert—
'6. After paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act there shall be added the following Appendix—

APPENDIX TO SCHEDULE 2

Countries or territories excluded from the scope of Paragraph 5(3)

Pakistan".'.

No. 22, in page 11, line 45, at end insert—
'6. After paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act there shall be added the following Appendix—

APPENDIX TO SCHEDULE 2

Countries or territories excluded from the scope of Paragraph 5(3)

Romania".'.

Mr. Alton: I think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) will refer specifically to amendment No. 21, which involves Pakistan.
The purpose of the amendments is to exclude from the scope of the designated list countries whose human rights records are deplorable or, at the very minimum, questionable. Two of the amendments deal with specific countries in order to raise first, the principle of the inclusion of a country in the list and secondly, the specifics of how such a list can affect the internal dynamics of human rights issues in countries such as Romania or Pakistan, and the messages that it can send to the regimes in those countries.
I strongly believe that we should exert downward pressure on countries that abuse human rights. That would be the best way of staunching the flow of asylum seekers and refugees. By giving succour and approbation to regimes, we do the least service to refugees, and we increase the exodus of people attempting to come from them to countries such as ours. We need to take a thorough approach to human rights. We should attempt to stop people fleeing from their oppression, persecution and torturers in the first place.
The amendments raise the subject of the designated list—which some people have called the white list—and how it can and will be used for propaganda purposes by the Governments of the countries involved. They will be able to point to a decision taken by the British Parliament—it will not be known in those countries that the decision was effectively taken by the Secretary of State, with no real decision being taken on the Floor of the House, as negative procedures will have been used.
In a Committee, a small group of hon. Members will have a chance to consider whether a country should be included or excluded from the designated list. Those hon. Members will be able merely to register their dissent; even if they were to do that and to say that a certain country should not be included, that fact would simply be reported back to the House, but it would not stop that country from being included on the list. Our procedures will be unhelpful when important decisions are taken about whether countries should be included or excluded.
As I said, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East will raise the subject of Pakistan, which is included on the designated list. He and I have shared platforms on the subject over many years. We recently went to see the Home Secretary together to raise the position in Pakistan. I entirely agree with the arguments that I have heard him advance on previous occasions. I am sure that he will set them out before the House again, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall specifically talk about Romania, which is covered by one of the amendments in the group. Like the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, with whom I have travelled to different parts of the world on behalf of Christian Solidarity International and the Jubilee


Campaign, I have taken an interest in the plight of people who have suffered or been persecuted, mainly for religious reasons.
Some years ago, I visited Romania, before the fall of President Ceausescu. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East brought to my attention the case of a Romanian orthodox clergyman called Georgie Calciu, whose weight had dropped to six stone and whose hands had been broken so that he could no longer make the sign of the cross. He was being detained in prison because he had been leading dissidents in Romania to express their political views and to form trade unions to try to effect a more democratic system in Romania. He suffered grievously for the stand that he took. As a result of the campaign led by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and my efforts when I visited Romania, Mr. Calciu was ultimately released. He visited the House, and we sat in the Jubilee Room and listened to his description of the conditions of privation that people had experienced in the days of Ceausescu.
Hon. Members will recall that, in 1989, a transformation occurred in Romania and Ceausescu was deposed. That was largely at the instigation of a wonderful man, a Protestant clergyman called Laszlo Tokes in the town of Timisoara. In that area of Transylvania, he set up the resistance against Ceausescu and became the hero of that revolution. All those who have written about events in Romania describe the brave stand that he took as a dissident in what are now far-off days, which led to the revolution that finally toppled Ceausescu.
8 pm
It is therefore especially interesting to revisit that part of the world today, as I have done, to discover what fundamental material changes have taken place during that time and to meet again Laszlo Tokes, who is now a bishop of his Church. I quote from a newspaper article published last year.
Today, in a Romania with a democratically elected government and parliament, Tokes, his wife and children live in constant fear of assassination. He is threatened with eviction from the few rooms in the crumbling violet building in Oradea that his bishopric managed to claim back from the State. The Securitate officers who were tried for mass murder are now free. Last November, the Romanian media reported that Tokes had been sentenced to death by anonymous 'people's courts' and $150,000 (£85,000) offered to his assassins.
The article adds that Edith Tokes, his wife,
feels that life is worse for her family now. 'Before the revolution, we always knew who was against us—the Securitate and the Interior Ministry, but now, with the campaign in the media, anyone could attack us.
The article describes many specific things that have occurred against that exceptional family.
In the context of the Bill, we are including that country in a so-called list of safe countries—the designated list. Those are events since Ceausescu. That family say that the position for them is actually worse from a human rights point of view than before.
That is not an isolated case. Last year, Amnesty International published
a report, 'Romania: Broken commitments to human rights' … presenting cases of continued violations of human rights, including the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience, the torture and ill-treatment of detainees, death in detention in suspicious circumstances and a nationwide pattern of police failure to protect the Roma minority from racist violence.

Anyone who has followed events in Romania will be well aware of the plight of the Roma minority and of the plight of homosexuals, which I mentioned in Committee. The 1995 report of Amnesty International says:
Since the publication of
its earlier report on human rights abuses
further cases of imprisonment of homosexuals who were considered prisoners of conscience, ill-treatment and a death in suspicious circumstances have been brought to the attention of the organisation. These cases, as well as updates to cases from the earlier paper, are presented in this report.
Christians have also suffered persecution for the stand that they have taken. I draw the attention of the House to the plight of the Greek Catholic minority—a substantial minority in Romania. Many of their buildings were seized during the Ceausescu years, and few have been returned.
I met one woman, Doina Cornea, who should be awarded the Nobel peace price. That extraordinarily brave, stunning woman of great courage has stood against unspeakable intimidation and pressure for many years. Even while I sat in her front room, telephones rang and people made threats to her, including death threats, so that is not a figment of the imagination. I have seen her and some of her co-religionists standing in sub-zero temperatures in fields and open spaces because they are not allowed access to their own buildings by the so-called democratic regime that we are placing on the designated list.
The message that is conveyed to dictators, despots and those who use the masquerade of democracy when the British Parliament includes them on a designated list is a message that we should not send them. That is why I want the House to reconsider seriously the mechanisms that we have devised.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) drew attention to the case of Mircea Ilin, who fled Romania for reasons of torture, racism and intimidation. When he arrived in this country, in 1991, he applied for political asylum. He told the Home Office in detail about his treatment in Romania, where he is a supporter of the Peasants National party, which bitterly opposes the present regime and is composed of people who believe in a mixed economy and democratic systems of government.
In 1985, Mr. Ilin was detained without trial for 18 months after attending a protest demonstration in Bucharest. He was detained again in 1987 after refusing to give police information about PNP members and he was required to attend various police stations and regularly beaten up. Post Ceausescu, in 1990, he was arrested at another demonstration, beaten with truncheons and detained without trial in Jilava prison.
In 1991, Mr. Ilin escaped to Britain. In 1994, his asylum application was rejected. He appealed. In 1995, he married an English woman. His lawyer, Ghayur Butt, extracted a promise from the Home Office that it would allow his Member of Parliament to make representations and would listen to them. After that assurance was given, before there was any chance for those representations to be made to the Home Office, officials surrounded his home and sought to arrest him.
The man eventually took to the window ledge, threatened suicide and, after six and a half hours there, went into hiding. If that case does not make the grade, what chance do others have? They will be on the fast track; they will be deported back to those countries. We


discussed those matters earlier when we considered new clause 5. What does it say about Romania, now to be given that golden seal of Home Office approval?
Those are all reasons why we should reconsider the way in which the Bill is drawn and the need for a black list. If the principle is accepted of a designated list of countries that are so-called "relatively safe in general"—the phrase that is usually used—why is there not another annexe to the Bill, on the face of the Bill if the Minister wishes or not if not, using the procedures that the Government advocate for the system of designated lists? I would be perfectly happy if that system were to be used for the designation of other countries whose human rights records are deplorable.
I know that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East especially wants to discuss the position in Pakistan, but I shall set the scene by describing the general position in the Islamic world.
The position for Christians varies from relative openness in the Lebanon and Jordan to absolute restrictions in Saudi Arabia and genocide in the Sudan. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states prohibit any open practice of Christianity. In Arab countries where Christianity is allowed, traditional churches are controlled by Governments and church buildings and businesses are frequently destroyed. Christians suffer discrimination in employment and education. They are restricted in travel, pay additional taxes and have inferior status in the courts.
In Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Sudan, the law specifies the death penalty for anyone who converts from Islam. In Egypt, which I have helped draw attention to in a report that I published last year with the Jubilee Campaign, new Christian converts from Islam are imprisoned and often tortured. Throughout the region, Christians can be forcibly divorced and their children taken to be raised by Islamic relatives. Many Christians remain under death threats by militant Islamists.
Many devoutly believing Muslims in this country and the middle east deplore those practices as much as I do and seek the type of pluralism and democratic structures that we in the House so deeply cherish. The issue is how we assist them best in that process.
The United Nations defines genocide as attempting to destroy a group by killing its members, causing serious bodily harm, subjecting it to conditions that will cause its physical destruction, preventing births and forcibly transferring children. Certainly, that is a description of what is happening in southern Sudan, where the National Islamic Front Government wage civil war with the predominantly Christian population of the south.
In Sudan, Christian men and women are forcibly separated. Children are seized to be raised as Muslims or sold in slave markets. Tens of thousands of refugees are dumped in the open desert and systematically denied food, water and medicine. Members of the House were done a service by the all-party group on Sudan, which enable them to attend a meeting last year at which some appalling atrocities were highlighted. They include documentation of repeated massacres and of the literal crucifixion of some Christians in southern Sudan. That is an appalling situation which warrants the establishment of some sort of list to show which countries do not have our seal of

approval. We would certainly not contemplate adding such countries to the safe or designated list of countries whose human rights records are generally good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) referred to the way in which we regard Iraq now and how we regarded it previously. Times have changed. That is why it is incumbent upon us not only to be concerned with speeding up asylum procedures, but to look at the root causes of why people become refugees in the first place. We will staunch the flow and end the haemorrhaging of refugees by putting downward pressure on brutal and repressive regimes. That is the best way of stopping the exodus from those countries. We should be exerting pressure on countries such as Sudan. An appendix of the sort that I have advocated would enable that to occur, and that is why I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. David Atkinson: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in his remarks about the situation in Romania. He may be aware that it is nearly three years since Romania became a full member of the Council of Europe, which is the European democratic community, and full member states are regarded as having reached our civilised standards of human rights and democracy.
I was the chairman of the Committee for Relations with European Non-member Countries, which scrutinised the progress that Romania was making towards reaching our standards. I accept that we made quite a large political compromise in Romania's case, believing that it would be more likely to achieve our standards if it were a full member of the Council of Europe rather than if it were kept out in the cold.
In the three years since it became a full member of the Council of Europe, Romania has made very little progress towards achieving our standards. It has not yet applied the European convention on human rights and it has not made a petition to the European Court in response to claims of denials of human rights, examples of which the hon. Gentleman referred to in his contribution.
The only comfort that I can offer the hon. Gentleman is that we have now introduced strengthened procedures for monitoring new member states as to their honouring of the commitments that they entered into upon joining the Council. There is always a long list of commitments, particularly in Romania's case. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's contribution today to the attention of the rapporteurs who are responsible for monitoring those commitments. They will take account of what he has said in the report that they will make in due course to the Assembly of the Council of Europe. We must decide whether it is appropriate to take action against Romania in order to encourage it to honour the commitments that it entered into upon becoming a full member. For example, the Council of Europe could withdraw the voting rights of the Romanian parliamentary delegation. That is just one sanction that we could apply.
It would be a grave mistake to designate Pakistan as a country in which there is no serious risk of persecution. Such a decision would fly in the face of what is occurring in that country, it would be misinterpreted by the unscrupulous and it would demoralise those who are already at risk. I refer to the plight of the Christian community in Pakistan, which constitutes 3 per cent. of the population.
In September 1994, I was invited by the Church of Pakistan to investigate the situation faced by Christians there on behalf of the Christian human rights organisation, Christian Solidarity International—with which a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, have long been associated. By chance, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) was also visiting the country, then in his capacity as a Foreign Office Minister.
8.15 pm
I was appalled by what I saw and by what I learnt at first hand. I met Pakistani Christians in prison who knew full well that they might be murdered before their trial, as others had been. I met Christians in hiding and awaiting trial who knew full well that, even if they were acquitted, they faced assassination on the streets of Pakistan, as others had. I met the families of murdered Christians who were also in hiding because of death threats against them. I visited a Christian village which had been attacked by a frenzied Islamic mob. Several houses had been burnt down and villagers had been raped.
One of the reasons why Christians in Pakistan at such risk is section 295C of the penal code—the blasphemy law—which President Zia introduced in 1985. Under that law, it is punishable by life imprisonment or by death to make remarks which blaspheme against the Prophet Mohammed or the Koran by imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly. The law is being used by Islamic fundamentalists—who often produce utterly false evidence—to encourage the Islamisation of the country and to intimidate Christians to convert to Islam. As it is a cognisable offence, the police can automatically arrest and imprison someone accused of it. Once in prison, no Christian is safe from beatings, torture or murder.
The law is administered by courts in which, for blasphemy cases, all judges and advocates must be Muslim. There can be no unbiased justice. Any Muslim who has converted to Christianity in Pakistan will be at risk for as long as he or she remains in Pakistan.
During my visit, I met Salamat and Rehmat Masih, who had been subject to such persecution and who were in hiding awaiting trial. Salamat was 12 years old when he was accused of scrawling a blasphemous slogan on a wall, although, according to his defence lawyer, he was illiterate. Outside the High Court, they were attacked by motor cyclists with AK47 rifles, despite being under police protection. A fellow Christian, Manzoor Masih, was killed and Salamat and Rehmat were wounded. Fortunately, they are now in Germany having been granted asylum in that country. They want to return to their families in Pakistan, but they can never go back—at least in the present climate—because it would mean death to them all. I hope that, like Germany, this country would have offered them asylum.
Those examples are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Pakistan. I have details of many cases of similar persecution, all of which show that, far from there being a presumption against the risk of persecution, the situation for Christians in Pakistan is such that there should be a general presumption of the risk of persecution.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is fully aware of the situation—not least because, to his credit, he visited Pakistan last month. I am extremely grateful to him and to my hon. Friends the Minister of

State and the Under-Secretary for providing the opportunity to meet them, together with the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, last month. They will recall a young Indian, Dr. Simon Qadiri, who fled from his country because there was a fatwa on his life for converting to Christianity. He is currently awaiting the outcome of his application to remain here and I very much hope that it will be considered compassionately. I am also grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for the asylum given to a very brave Pakistani Christian a few weeks ago. I dare not name him because his family in Pakistan remains very much under threat.
I hope that what I have said is enough to convince my hon. Friend the Minister of State that to suggest that Pakistan and India are free of such persecution would send out all the wrong signals. It would encourage Islamic fundamentalists, who would say that Britain recognised that there was no problem. That would demoralise members of the Christian community, who would feel abandoned by their mother country. I hope that my hon. Friend will think again, and I look forward to her response.

Miss Emma Nicholson: It is a pleasure to support the amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for initiating the debate and to other colleagues for supporting the amendment, which addresses our shared concern about the impact of the lists and the fact that they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny in any meaningful sense of the word.
During the passage of the 1993 Act, the Minister said that the Government had no intention of designating countries where there was a threat to the life or freedom of citizens and that to do so would be to fly in the face of logic and our convention obligations. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill has demonstrated that, in Romania, a country that the Government are prepared to list, there is significant justification for being afraid for one's life. He has also mentioned north Cyprus and we have now heard about Pakistan.
One is tempted to ask who has the knowledge. Where is that cluster of people with continuing and changing knowledge of persecution and horrible tortures in so many countries? The Foreign Office has that knowledge, but it can sometimes be wrong. I have already mentioned Iraq, on which the Foreign Office was clearly in error. That is easy to say with hindsight although, as I said earlier, after the chemical bombing of the Kurds in 1988, most of the world knew that Iraq had no good human rights record. If that is seen and understood to be true—as it is with hindsight—let us also have a negative list. If we are to have a positive list that we cannot subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, let us have a negative list that includes such countries as Iraq. We should not remove them from that list until they have achieved transparent human rights, exemplified by the fair treatment of all citizens.
The good list would undoubtedly contain all the European Union countries and many members of the Council of Europe. As has already been said, there would be problems with that, and perhaps not all the Council of Europe countries should be included. The list would also include members of the British Commonwealth. After all, Commonwealth countries have already passed the golden test of being democracies, and implicit in that is the record on human rights.
Even South Africa, which has made magnificent strides into the real world of no apartheid, has significant problems and Mrs. Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has accepted several official refugees. I am responsible for one of them. His life would be at risk if South Africa were designated a white country. Must we use those ridiculous terms that carry such silly and foolish connotations? It is quite bizarre, but typical of the Government, who are out of touch—as always. We should call such countries good and acceptable rather than white.
Although South Africa is a member of the British Commonwealth and has emerged into the light of day with everything in order in regard to democracy, it still creates problems for some people—perhaps those who fell foul of Mrs. Mandela or her ugly cohorts who killed so many people—and therefore cannot go on the good list. I have full and consistent knowledge of one refugee and I have rights of attorney for him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke movingly about the persecution of Christians. European Union countries would have to be on the good list as they represent the most perfect grouping of all, yet in Germany, France and other countries there is continuing and rising persecution of religious minorities. At present, there is considerable persecution of Muslims in Germany, France and Italy. That is why Muslims fleeing persecution in their homeland—not necessarily for religious reasons—come to the United Kingdom. Despite the 1993 Act, and because the Bill has not yet reached the statute book, Britain still has a reputation—which is falling fast—for tolerance.
In conclusion, it was a tragedy that Britain, with no membership of UNESCO, did not officially take up the banner of the United Nations last year—the year for tolerance. Perhaps it was because tolerance is not in the Government's guidelines.

Miss Widdecombe: I feel that much of the debate has been conducted on a complete misapprehension. There is no question whatever that, just because a country is on the designated list, an individual will not have his asylum claim thoroughly examined.
The purpose of the designated list is to designate countries that are not safe completely, totally or without exception, but are generally considered to be safe. They might generate a large number of applications and a high percentage of refusals. Despite the high percentage of refusals of asylum seekers from Pakistan and Romania, each year a very small percentage receive either asylum or exceptional leave to remain, which is granted when an individual has not satisfied us on the precise terms of the convention, but has done so on humanitarian terms. There is no good reason to suppose that, merely because a country is designated and therefore recognised as one likely to bring about a large percentage of refusals, a small percentage of acceptances will not continue. There has been some misapprehension. It is certainly not true that somebody's life would be in danger merely because the country in which they were living appeared on the designated list.
It would be an error to accept amendment No. 26 because an appendix listing countries that are not suitable for designation would serve no useful purpose. It would

replace negative procedure with affirmative procedure for designating countries on the appendix. We consider the affirmative procedure to be inappropriate. The immigration rules are subject to negative procedure, as are the recently amended benefit regulations. We believe that it would be consistent, sensible and utterly in proportion to have the negative procedure for this set of rules. Such a list would be pointless because, if the Secretary of State considers a country unsuitable for designation, he simply will not designate it. He does not have any need of, or use for, a power to list a country as unsuitable for designation. The proposed appendage to schedule 2 to the 1993 Act would undesirably blur the distinction between primary and secondary legislation. As we all recognise that the suitability of a country for designation can change either way over time, any listing should be for secondary legislation, with its flexible procedures.
8.30 pm
I listened carefully to the concerns expressed about Pakistan and Romania. As was acknowledged, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I met the hon. Members who tabled amendments Nos. 21 and 22 last month, to hear their concerns about Pakistan. We listened closely to their arguments but heard nothing to dissuade us from our assessment that Pakistan and Romania are at present suitable candidates for designation in the terms that I have explained. That does not mean that we are saying that anybody in those countries could never, in any circumstances, be in fear of persecution or produce outstanding humanitarian grounds for exceptional leave to remain. My right hon. and learned Friend visited Pakistan at the beginning of this year and found no grounds for altering our assessment of conditions in that country.
I draw a distinction between fear of persecution by a ruling regime, which would cause us to examine the situation most carefully, and fear of persecution by neighbours in small pockets or particular territories, in which case there is the possibility of movement within the country. Far more important, there is the possibility of an appeal to the authorities in that country to deal with the situation. Nevertheless, I do not rule out individual applicants from such countries, even after designation, making a case for asylum—which, under the terms of the convention we would gladly and willingly honour our obligation to accept.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for her answers. We should be careful before emasculating the powers of the House. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) and I have been able to put specific points about Romania and Pakistan. By approving the Bill in its present form, the House is denying itself the right ever to have such a debate again because in future, the negative procedure will be used in Committee.
The Minister said that if the Secretary of State is unhappy about a particular country, he will not list it. Countries such as Cyprus have already been listed. Letters saying that there are no human rights problems in that country were read to the House earlier, yet we all know that that is contrary to reality. The hon. Lady said that differences between bad neighbours leading to disputes or


particular problems in which one group agitating against another might affect minorities are different from systematic persecution by a Government. I agree, but if one takes the example of Romania, what was the difference between the Securitate operating under the Ceausescu regime and the Securitate under the Iliescu regime? The results were exactly the same for the people who suffered.
In the case of Pakistan, the situation that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East described would not occur if the blasphemy laws were not on the statute book and framed as they are. The Pakistan Government, in failing to repeal those laws, are allowing persecution to continue.
This debate would be better pursued in the other place. I do not believe that anything would be gained by dividing the House—there was a Division in Committee on the matter. Having aired the issues, I am happy to leave it to the other place to re-examine them and to amend the Bill. We will then have the opportunity to reconsider the Bill as amended. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—

'(3) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if, on his arrival in the United Kingdom, the appellant was required by an immigration officer to produce a valid passport and either—

(a) he failed to produce a passport without giving a reasonable explanation for his failure to do so; or
(b) he produced a passport which was not in fact valid and failed to inform the officer of that fact.'.

No. 32, in page 2, line 5, after 'Act,' insert
'has been recommended for deportation by a court empowered by that Act to do so,'.

No. 33, in page 2, line 14, at end insert '(2),'.

No. 34, in page 2, line 17, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraphs'.—[Mr.Kirkhope.]

Mr. Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 18, after 'paragraph', insert '—

(a) the purpose of which is to designate any country or territory under sub-paragraph (3) above shall—

(i) relate to only one country or territory, and
(ii) be made by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House; or
(b) the purpose of which is to remove any country or territory, or countries or territories, from designation under sub-paragraph (3) above'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 24, in page 2, line 18, after 'shall', insert
', if made under sub-paragraph (3) above, relate to only one country or territory and shall'.
No. 25, in page 2, line 19, leave out from 'be' to 'House' in line 20 and insert
'laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each'.

Mr. Henderson: I shall speak to amendment No. 6 briefly because the House might give priority to other matters, not that they are necessarily more important. Some aspects of the issues that relate to amendment

No. 6 and to the next two or three groups of amendments were dealt with in Committee, and I am sure that they will be re-examined in the other place.
I disapprove of the so-called white list because I do not believe that a country can properly fulfil its obligations under an international treaty and the United Nations convention by introducing two lists for different types of asylum applications. If we genuinely believe that cases should be considered on their merits, one procedure should be used regardless of an applicant's origins. I am not suggesting that we should tolerate the delays that have occurred in asylum cases, or that we should be soft on bogus applications, but the House should devise a fair procedure that gives the genuine political asylum seeker a chance to put his or her case, provides legal representation, and allows a case to be processed speedily—and which, if the applicant does not agree with the result, provides for an appeal to be heard in this country.
The resources necessary to allow the Home Office and the judicial system to operate that procedure should be made available—as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said in a previous debate. He was formerly the Minister responsible. He recognised that the only proper course was to make extra resources available—which would save on costs tomorrow. I refer not only to the administrative costs created by the delays but to those that might accrue to local authorities or other bodies charged with providing for persons waiting for their cases to be heard.
Instead, there will be two lists. We do not know the time limits that will operate, but we know the identity of some of the countries included on the designated list. Newspaper reports have rumoured that the list will be extended.

Miss Widdecombe: Rumours.

Mr. Henderson: I did not claim that they were other than rumours. The original press leaks some months ago were not too inaccurate.
I do not believe that the proposed system will be effective, and certainly it will not be fair. The House should be given the opportunity to judge any change in the lists, so that hon. Members can make the case for a particular country appearing on either one of them. That view was articulated by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who said that there were strong arguments to be made in respect of Pakistan.
Under the negative procedure proposed by the Government, the orders will come into force before the House has had an opportunity to consider all relevant aspects. I do not argue against the negative procedure being used when a country is taken off a list. If the political or military situation changes in a country, the Government must be able to act quickly, but when the list is added to, an affirmative resolution of this House is called for.

Mr. Alton: I support what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said. I should like to speak also to amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which would allow countries to be dealt with individually, not by a "block vote" and allow Parliament to vote in a proper manner instead of using the negative procedure that we have already discussed extensively.
In Committee, other countries were often cited as models that we should follow when framing our procedures. It turns out that we tend to dismiss the safeguards deployed by those archetypal countries, however. Denmark has such a list, but its refugee council has an absolute right of veto over the inclusion of any country on it. I would not go as far as to say that an outside organisation should have such power, but that is an interesting contrast with the Government's approach. In Germany, these matters are debated in the upper house of the Bundestag, which can vote on them—yet the same safeguards will not apply here. Belgium, which introduced the system that we are being advised to accept, abolished it in 1993. Italy, Spain, Austria and France do not even have safe country of origin lists, although some of them have looked into such methods and decided against them.
We have missed the chance here of adopting a European approach. Some harmonisation might be useful in this area—although I see the Government Whip tutting because I dare to mention the word "Europe". Not too many of his rebellious colleagues are present this evening, so perhaps I may develop the point. A standardised procedure would be far better than a patchwork quilt of procedures throughout Europe and would not put other European countries in a difficult situation.
I want to give one further example of how the lists do not take into account changes of Government that can occur and hence the risk of real unfairness owing to governmental idiosyncrasies. India is included on the list, but everyone who knows it knows that there are massive regional variations. There are minority problems and local discrepancies, all of which render the list approach undesirable.
Before the House approves the lists, we should remember that countries such as India and Ghana have been designated. In its 1995 report Amnesty International had this to say about India:
Thousands of political prisoners were held without charge or trial. Torture and ill-treatment of detainees were routine, resulting in hundreds of deaths in police and military custody. Scores of political detainees disappeared".
About Ghana, Amnesty International had this to say:
five Ghanaians were charged with plotting a coup attempt—'it appeared that the motive for their arrest might have been political and that they might have been prisoners of conscience'; 'inter-ethnic conflict resulted in the killing of at least 1,000 people, and possibly more"'.
Why on earth is the House sending this signal to such regimes? Why is it always said that they are safe countries, generally speaking, that ought to appear on the white list? We would do far better to do what we have always done before, and treat each case on its merits. If we need more resources to process cases more efficiently, by all means let us provide them.

Miss Widdecombe: I am afraid that I must resist all three amendments, which will come neither as a surprise nor as a disappointment to hon. Members.
The effect of amendment No. 6 would be that designation orders could designate only one country per order, and that they would be subject to positive, not negative resolution procedure. Amendments Nos. 24

and 25 would have the same effect, except that in their case the positive procedure would apply regardless of whether a country was added to the list or taken off it.
I see no reason to resort to the affirmative procedure for designation orders. The negative procedure is used for immigration rules, so it should be appropriate for these purposes also. We also believe that the designation procedure must be sufficiently flexible to allow us to make amendments quickly—such as when a substantial increase in the number of unfounded applications from a country calls for speedy designation.
Every year, apparently compelling reasons are advanced for saying that nearly every order in new legislation should be subject to the affirmative procedure; if we took that route, the business of the House would come to a standstill. We must therefore exercise a reasonable and selective approach to the use of affirmative procedures.
A prohibition on designating more than one country in an order would be inflexible, cumbersome and unnecessary. If we designate several countries in one order, and Parliament disagrees with our judgment about just one of the countries in it, the whole order will fall. That is unlikely to happen, but if it does, an amended order could be reintroduced quickly. On all practical grounds, therefore, I urge the House to resist these amendments if they are pressed, which I hope they will not be.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—

'(7) In this paragraph—
'immigration officer' means an immigration officer appointed for the purposes of the 1971 Act;
'passport', in relation to an appellant, means a passport with photograph or some other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality or citizenship.'.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Clause 2

REMOVAL ETC. OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS TO SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES

Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 2, line 23, leave out from 'from' to end of line 32 and insert
'the United Kingdom if—

(a) the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion, the conditions mentioned in subsection (2A) below are fulfilled;
(b) the certificate has not been set aside on an appeal under section 3 below; and
(c) except in the case of a person who is to be sent to a country or territory to which subsection (2B) below applies, the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired and no such appeal is pending.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 32, after 'Convention', insert
'and
(d) that that person has no close family ties or other links (including linguistic, cultural or historical links) which would render it more appropriate for his claim to be


considered by the United Kingdom authorities under the terms of the Convention Determining the State Responsible for Examining Applications for Asylum Lodged in One of the Member States of the European Community, done at Dublin in 1990.'.
Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38.
Amendment No. 11, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 4 and 5.
Government amendment No. 39.
Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
'(2A) Where an appeal under this section is upheld, the person who made the appeal should be allowed to re-enter the United Kingdom, if he seeks to do so.'.
Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41.

Miss Widdecombe: Government amendments Nos. 36 to 41 limit non-suspensive appeals against removal to a third country to cases where the third country is a member of the European Union or is another state designated by order. This fulfils an undertaking given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), in Standing Committee.
Clauses 2 and 3 will enable us to achieve the important objective of speeding up removals in third-country cases, and enhancing the effectiveness of our third-country policy. But my hon. Friend informed the Committee on 23 January that we had looked further at the problem of delays in removing asylum seekers to third countries, and had concluded that this part of the Bill could be improved.
In more than 95 per cent. of cases in which asylum is refused on safe third-country grounds, the third country to which the Secretary of State is seeking to remove the applicant is a member state of the EU, such as France or Germany.

Miss Emma Nicholson: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: No.
We do not accept that applicants should be able to delay removal by disputing the safety of such countries. We have, however, concluded that there is no need to apply non-suspensive appeals to all third country cases, and we propose to limit them to member states of the European Union in the first instance.
Government amendment No. 37 provides an order-making power that will enable us at a later stage to extend non-suspensive third-country appeals to selected non-EU countries. Those would be countries with proven safe asylum procedures, such as Switzerland, Canada and the United States of America. The Government amendments provide an in-country right of appeal where the third country is not a member of the EU and is not being designated by order as a country to which an applicant can be removed on third-country grounds without a suspensive right of appeal.
I propose to resist amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 12.
In the case of amendment No. 8, it is an accepted principle that the first safe country that an applicant reaches should be the state responsible for considering his asylum claim. Amendment No. 8 would prevent us from removing an asylum seeker to that safe country if he could demonstrate some sort of link with the United Kingdom, whatever that link might be.
Our background paper on third-country removals makes it clear that we operate discretionary policies that specify the circumstances in which an applicant will not be removed on third-country grounds. Those include a family ties concession, but those considerations must remain discretionary. In the great majority of cases, we exercise discretion in the applicant's favour, but it is not hard to imagine circumstances in which it would be appropriate to remove an applicant on third-country grounds even though that applicant had ties with the United Kingdom. A good example would be if the applicant had a criminal record. We believe that it is perfectly proper to return such an asylum seeker to the safe third country.
Amendment No. 8 goes much wider than family ties. It even refers to other links, including linguistic, cultural or historical links. It seems to envisage that we should not remove anyone on third-country grounds if he can so much as speak English.
The amendment also refers to the Dublin convention, but that convention does not contain any provision which states that it would be more appropriate for the United Kingdom to consider an asylum claim if the applicant has historical, linguistic or cultural ties. Article 9 of that convention simply allows for member states to exercise their discretion, as I have explained we do, on humanitarian grounds, in particular on family or cultural grounds, at the request of another member state. The Dublin convention fully recognises that that is properly a matter for discretion.
On amendment No. 11, in cases in which the appeal is non-suspensive, we do not favour allowing it to be lodged while the applicant is still in the United Kingdom. The whole point of non-suspensive appeals is to allow quick removal. If we allowed the application to be initiated while the applicant was still in the United Kingdom, we would risk delays in removal. Appellants would press for time to consult legal advisers or to collate evidence before lodging their appeal.
The approach that we have adopted has the advantage of speed and clarity, and will substantially reduce the scope for challenges and delays. We shall provide in the appeal procedure rules that the time limit for lodging an appeal starts from the time of removal.
The provision to prevent an out-of-country, third-country appeal from being lodged while the applicant is still in the United Kingdom mirrors subsections 13(3) and 16(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, which already provides for appeals from abroad on non-asylum grounds. So there is nothing especially new in our proposal that non-suspensive appeals should be brought only after removal.
We believe that amendment No. 12 is unnecessary, for two reasons. First, we gave a clear undertaking in Committee—which I am happy to repeat—that successful third-country appellants who appealed from abroad would be allowed to return to the United Kingdom. Secondly, it will already be open to the special adjudicator to issue a direction to the Secretary of State under section 19 of the Immigration Act 1971 to readmit a successful appellant.
I commend the Government amendments to the House, and urge withdrawal of, or resistance to, amendment Nos. 8, 11 and 12.

Mr. Henderson: I am mindful that the House wishes to proceed to deal with other matters. Therefore, all I wish


to say about amendment No. 8 is that all of us who have been involved for the past two months and more in Committee know that the Dublin convention makes sense. It is sensible to proceed by agreement among European Union countries. Two countries have yet to agree to that convention. Amendment No. 8 recognises that others have still to complete their signatures, but we should proceed on the basis that it is signed. In most instances, reciprocity could be sought on a bilateral level with other countries.
We welcome the Government's change on appeals from third countries where those countries are outside the European Union. Originally, the Government believed that persons should return to those countries to make their appeal, and I am glad that the Government recognise that that was completely impractical and would have guaranteed no fairness or protection for the individuals involved.
If a political asylum procedure is to be fair and perceived as fair, it is very difficult to cover all eventualities, even in the European Union. I have been told of the difficulties of presenting an appeal from countries such as Italy, and in some cases Belgium, because of relationships that they have with other countries and because of their various legal systems.
If we genuinely want to stand up—as Conservative Members have suggested—and say that we are a rich country, that we should be fair, and that we should look sympathetically at applications made by people with a genuine fear of persecution, we should allow appeals to be made even if people come through a third country to this country. That is why I am not prepared to withdraw amendment No. 11.
I heard what the Minister of State said about amendment No. 12, and that may be considered further in another place.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The Minister of State did not give way to me, and it is therefore good of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call me.
This group of amendments will change the legislation in line with Government statements in discussions of clauses 2 and 3 in Committee. We are concerned especially about amendment No. 36, because it would allow asylum seekers to be removed without an in-country right of appeal to member states of the European Union, or to other countries which will be specified in an order laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. Surely this amendment will leave many people at risk of being repatriated because of the failure of certain European member states to apply effectively the 1951 convention or to ensure that all the officials at their border posts do so.
Amendment No. 36 also leaves open the question, which is even more worrying, which countries might be named in an order and gives more power to the Secretary of State alone. What criteria will be introduced to determine whether a country could correctly be named? We have already commented on the limitations of the negative resolution procedure for debating any such order.
It is, of course, important to put it on the record too that the majority of third-country appeals allowed since the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into effect have been in relation to European Union countries. So our concerns are real, and we have evidence already.
Surely the adjudicators would not have allowed such appeals if they had not had serious concerns about returning asylum seekers to those European Union countries. We believe that a proper appeal is still needed for those cases. The Refugee Legal Centre was, quite rightly, quoted in Standing Committee D about the 1993 legislation. It stated:
The introduction of a right of appeal which could be exercised prior to removal to a third country deemed to be safe was a welcome feature of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. For the first time, there was independent judicial scrutiny of decisions to refuse leave to enter on the grounds that an asylum seeker could be safely returned to a third country."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 January 1996; c. 235.]
In that context I refer especially to amendment No. 8, which includes references to
no close family ties or other links (including linguistic, cultural or historical
which might hold back the possibility of someone being sent to another country, while his or her case would be more appropriately dealt with in the long term in the United Kingdom.
9 pm
Mistakes can be made, which can be dramatic and sometimes outstanding. By diligent work—the matter was extremely difficult—I recently stopped the deportation of a Dartmoor prisoner, who was under order to be deported to India. Yet he was a British subject. He had been one since birth. His father was similarly a British subject. Why India? He told me that he had no "linguistic, cultural or historical" ties there. I asked him, "Why India?" He replied, "Perhaps because my father was an employee of the Indian air force during his career."
It required vast efforts to get the prisoner's case re-examined—in other words, to stop a British subject being deported to India at the end of his sentence. Another beneficial result of my efforts was that his conviction and sentence were quashed, but that is another matter.
If the Home Secretary can make such a mistake—it is a recorded case—which would lead to deportation for life to India for someone who had no links with that country, surely asylum seekers can expect short shrift if errors are made, and there will be many. My party is opposed to the Government amendment, and supports the Opposition amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—

'(2A) The conditions are—

(a) that the person is not a national or citizen of the country or territory to which he is to be sent;
(b) that his life and liberty would not be threatened in that country or territory by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion; and
(c) that the government of that country or territory would not send him to another country or territory otherwise than in accordance with the Convention.

(2B) This subsection applies to any country or territory which is or forms part of a member State, or is designated for the purposes of this subsection in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(2C) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(2D) For the purposes of this section, an appeal under section 3 below is pending during the period beginning when notice of appeal is duly given and ending when the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn.'.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Clause 3

APPEALS AGAINST CERTIFICATES UNDER SECTION 2

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 2, line 43, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

'(1) Where a certificate has been issued under section 2(1) above in respect of any person—

(a) that person may appeal against the certificate to a special adjudicator on the ground that any of the conditions mentioned in section 2(2A) above was not fulfilled when the certificate was issued, or has since ceased to be fulfilled; but
(b) unless and until the certificate is set aside on such an appeal, he shall not be entitled to bring or pursue any appeal under section 8 of the 1993 Act (appeals to special adjudicator on Convention grounds).'.

No. 39, in page 3, line 4, after 'person', insert
'who has been, or is to be, sent to a country or territory to which section 2(2B) above applies'.

No. 40, in page 3, line 23, after 'Act' insert '(a)'.

No. 41, in page 3, line 24, after 'section' insert 'and
(b) may make different provision in relation to appeals by persons who have been, or are to be, sent to countries or territories of different descriptions;'.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Clause 4

OBTAINING LEAVE BY DECEPTION

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'deception' and insert
means which include deception by him'.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Clause 5

ASSISTING ASYLUM CLAIMANTS, AND PERSONS SEEKING TO OBTAIN LEAVE BY DECEPTION

Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 3, line 39, leave out 'an asylum claimant' and insert
'intending to make a claim for asylum which is without foundation'.—[Mr. Henderson.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 16, in page 4, leave out lines 1 to 9.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 3, line 41, leave out from 'obtaining' to end of line 43 and insert
'by anyone of leave to remain in the United Kingdom by means which he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to include deception'.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Clause 8

RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 5, line 11, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (2A) and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 52, in page 5, line 21, at end insert—

'(2A) Nothing in this section applies in relation to an employer who has fewer than 10 employees.'.

Mr. Henderson: The amendments relate to an important part of the Bill. The Government have made much play of their belief that there is considerable illegal immigration in this country and that significant numbers of illegal immigrants are working when they should not. The Government have not yet provided us at any stage in our consideration of the Bill with figures that would stick to the wall on the extent of illegal immigration. Some estimates have been made of the numbers of illegal workers and my view of the estimate of 10,000 is that it was made by throwing coins in the air and seeing which way they fell. I have seen no significant study that has suggested what the precise figures would be.
We can be sure, however, that the Bill will have many major implications for race and community relations. It seems clear to me that when employers are given the responsibility effectively to become immigration policemen, that must have an impact on the community in which those employers operate. People who live in that community will say, "Are there fair-minded employers in our community and is employer X fair-minded?" They will go on to ask whether some sections of their community are discriminated against by employers.
We must consider not only the damage that can be done to communities but the damage that will be done to individual groups.
I believe that black people, Asian people and other ethnic peoples in all parts of our country will not have the opportunity to get a job because employers will guard against their employment. Employers are well aware, however, that, in all probability, 99 per cent. of all potential employees are British citizens, who have every right to work here, and just 1 per cent. may not have leave to work in this country. In the same circumstances, however, employers will say, "We're not going to risk becoming criminalised by Government legislation." They will avoid that by not offering employment to certain people. They will not want to check passports and the 40 other documents required. If there is a possibility, even a remote one, that a person might not be entitled to work here, the employer will say, "He ain't working for my company." The consequences of such action will be extremely damaging to particular sections of the community. For example, 60 per cent. of young black men between the ages of 18 and 25 are unemployed. What will that unemployment level become should employers study the details of the Bill? Such is the likely impact of clause 8.
Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it because a load of evidence has been built up by organisations with all sorts of different backgrounds and representing all sorts of different industries.
We heard in an earlier debate about the importance that people attach to religious freedom in other countries. I have received a communication from the Churches Commission for Racial Justice—representing persons who are responsible for religious policy in this country—written by Rev. David Haslam, who is well known in the ecumenical movement. He writes about clause 8:
This is sure to lead to many employers being even less willing to employ people from the visible minorities just in case they are here illegally … it will damage race relations in the workplace. It is an extremely undesirable development.


That view is repeated by the Commission for Racial Equality, which said in a submission to every hon. Member:
We have examined carefully the wording of Clause 8…and, having regard also to the expressed experiences of ethnic minorities across the country, we have concluded that these proposals cannot be implemented without damaging race relations and increasing the barriers to employment opportunities for ethnic minorities.
The Food and Drink Federation is significant to the debate because of the employment of persons in small companies, especially in the catering and linked trades, in which many persons who are identified as belonging to ethnic community groups are employed or wish to seek employment. It states:
We would suggest most strongly that the potential procedures are unlikely to prevent illegal immigrants obtaining employment to any serious degree and that it would be an essential prerequisite for the NI system to be tightened up very considerably.
That federation also notes the damage that could be caused to ethnic communities. I know that federation well because one of the big companies in my constituency, Nestle, is affiliated to it.
The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which represents many small organisations in this country, has stressed that if clause 8 is implemented, damage will be done to race relations in this country.
It is interesting to note that in Committee there were murmurings from Conservative Members that we could not listen to what the Federation of Small Businesses said because it was not truly representative of real small businesses in the United Kingdom. That seemed to be the mood of Conservative Back Benchers and I began to suspect that those on the Government Front Bench were prepared to go along with it. I must make it clear that the Federation of Small Businesses stressed in its submission to all hon. Members:
We repeat that it is not the job of an employer to check immigration status. It will lead to increased race discrimination against minority members of the community. Indeed, should the proposal get on to the Statute Book we believe it will be unworkable.
The Federation of Small Businesses says that there will be difficulties with race relations if clause 8 is introduced.
Amendment No. 51 seeks to limit the extent of clause 8. When the question of disability was before the House, the Minister responding on behalf of the Department for Education and Employment said, interestingly, in comparison with the views expressed in Committee by Home Office Ministers and their team:
the Federation of Small Businesses speaks specifically on behalf of small businesses."—[Official Report, 27 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 729.]
I want to move away from the impact on race relations to the practicalities, because the same Minister said, in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995:
The principle of exempting small business from various pieces of legislation is well established… we want it recognised that small firms are subject to many constraints, not least that they cannot be expected to have the personnel resources—the range of abilities, knowledge, competence and time—to allow them to concern themselves with the minutiae of legislation.
He had obviously started to think about the 40 documents that might be before him in future. He continued:
That is why Governments of all persuasions have set out to protect small businesses where it has been feasible, and why we maintain the view that businesses with fewer than 20 employees

should be exempted from the legislation. That is not because we want them to discriminate—we hope that they will not—but want to relieve them from the burden of complying".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 February 1995; c. 246–48.]
Other comments have been made, one of which was:
We all want Britain to be a successful trading nation, producing high quality goods, achieving high productivity and rewarding its people with higher living standards. But you do not get these by pushing up your social costs and burdening your labour market with bureaucratic and inflexible rules, regulations and practices.
I wonder whether hon. Members would care to guess whose words those were. The Trades Union Congress? Small businesses? Ministers for Education and Employment? No, that was the Home Secretary, when addressing the Isle of Wight Conservative Association on 16 July 1993. We have heard much recently about saying one thing and doing another. That seems to me to be a classic case of just that.
My point is that, in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act, the Minister recognised that there were differences between the way in which small and large companies deal with regulations. We all know that a larger company that has a resource personnel department can cope with the minutiae of legislation. I do not argue in clause 8 that companies should have to police the documents, because the race relations aspects are damaging, and even if they were able to do so, I am not sure that it would identify anyone who should not be working there.
Let us suppose that we give the Government the benefit of the doubt and that there might be a case for larger companies to do that. On disability, the Government said that a different situation should apply for small businesses because they face other difficulties. I do not ask for a limit of 20. I think that it could be 10. If the Government wish to look at a different limit, I am certainly prepared to give it further consideration. The principle should be that small companies cannot deal with legislation in the same way as large companies. The Government cannot say that that is the case in relation to disability and then deny that it is the case in relation to employers' checks on the legality of employment.
If the Government insist that there is a case for retaining clause 8—I do not believe that there is—they should recognise the weight of evidence given to them by employers' organisations, especially those representing small businesses. They should have the decency to acknowledge that there is a case for exemption. If the wording of the amendment is defective, or if the Government would prefer a figure other than 10, I do not think that we would go to the wall on that. If the Minister has anything like an open mind, the evidence should convince him.

Mr. Keith Hill: Opposition Members consider that the Bill will have two significant effects on employers. A responsible employer who takes the Bill seriously will experience a major escalation in costs, because he will feel obliged to engage in lengthy and detailed scrutiny of up to 40 separate documents in many different languages. The initial cost to industry as a whole of implementing the clause has been estimated at some £30 million, and on-going annual costs have been estimated at £11 million. In Committee, many of us expressed scepticism about those figures, suspecting them to be a considerable


understatement. No doubt other hon. Members will echo my view that the burden of the additional costs will fall most heavily on small businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) pointed out, that is why the Federation of Small Businesses is so adamantly opposed to the measure.
The less responsible employer will short-circuit the legislation, deciding that he or she does not want to go through the difficult and time-consuming procedure of checking out the documentation. Such employers will opt for the white applicant with the Anglo-Saxon surname. That is why virtually every organisation—including the Commission for Racial Equality and the Confederation of British Industry, which responded to the Government's consultation on illegal working—has expressed considerable misgivings about the implications for race relations.
The irony is that the proposals will have the least impact on the unscrupulous employer—the employer who operates at the margins, in the sweatshops of the rag trade and the catering industry. We can make an educated and reasonable guess that the majority of illegal immigrants will be found in those marginal industries. Why should such an employer comply with the legislation? He will have no incentive to do so: the savings to be made through low pay and non-payment of social security money and tax are more than likely to compensate for the remote possibility of a fine.
What is the risk of such unscrupulous employers' being caught out? Practically nil. As has been pointed out today, in 1994 the number of prosecutions for illegal working under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 amounted to a grand total of just a dozen. The legislation simply is not enforced.
I gather that 274 immigration staff around the country are concerned with illegal working. If all that they can come up with is 12 prosecutions in the year, they must be the least efficient and most unproductive staff of any Government Department.

Mr. Gerrard: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when that was discussed in Committee, it became apparent that most cases of illegal working are identified not because of checks on work but because people come to light through other immigration checks and it is then discovered, by chance, that they are working? The Minister suggested that nothing much would change in that respect. The employers in the sweatshops—the exploiters—are among those most likely to be able to continue as at present.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend has a wonderfully accurate recollection of the Committee and anticipates my argument. He refers to the figure of 10,000 illegal workers that was bandied across the Committee during our lengthy proceedings. However, there is no evidence that any of those 10,000 illegal workers have ever been followed to their places of employment or that any prosecution or form of action has been taken against them.
I assume that the 274 immigration staff with some responsibility for illegal working have a good many other responsibilities in respect of immigration. The only guarantee of a threat to the unscrupulous employers I mentioned, who are likely to be the primary employers of illegal immigrant labour, would be if extra resources,

extra staff and extra manpower were put into prosecutions of those cases. There is nothing on that in the Bill. We have heard nothing from Ministers to suggest that there will be any extra resources devoted to the enforcement of the legislation. The truth is that there will be no enforcement. If there is any intention to enforce it, I invite the Minister to tell us now. I will gladly give way to him if there is any evidence of enforcement. The Minister is mute on the subject, as he was in Standing Committee.
The proposals will have no effect on catching out illegal immigrant workers or their employers. They will increase the costs significantly of responsible companies that implement the legislation, especially small businesses.

Ms Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend noted that the Minister is mute on enforcement. He will remember that the Minister moved clause 8 in Committee in two minutes flat. Did not that reflect his embarrassment about this shoddy and unworkable Bill?

Mr. Hill: As ever, I concur 100 per cent. with the views of my hon. Friend and her castigation of the Minister.

Mr. Kirkhope: It is true that I introduced that clause in a comparatively short time—a succinct, quality delivery. When I wound up—in, I think, the absence of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—I was criticised by several members of the Committee for speaking for too long. When I get the chance, I shall reply in a measured way though not, as I look at the clock, too lengthily, I trust.

Mr. Hill: I hope that the most measured aspect of the Minister's response will be to deal with the most fundamental and damning aspect of the critique of the proposals—that their most lasting and general effect will be to worsen existing discrimination against black and Asian citizens of this country. That is the accusation to which he must try to respond.

Mr. Chris Davies: I support amendment No. 51. Although it will have some palliative effect on clause 8, the substance of the clause remains deeply objectionable. When it was first proposed there was an outcry, which shows no sign of diminishing now.
I have three points to make. Reading the Hansard account of Standing Committee D, I noted that in column 451 the Minister described clause 8 as creating a new offence, saying an "employer will be guilty" and liable to a fine of £5,000, if "he employs an immigrant" who does not have the valid right to be here.
My first point is that the word immigrant is deeply emotive and tends to be applied exclusively by the public at large to those citizens who have dark skins. The fact that we can look at statistics and point to Australians, Canadians and the like who are truly immigrants makes no difference, nor does the fact that the people with dark skins may be as British as anyone in this Chamber—all too often that is the popular perception.
Let us consider the example of two Oldhamers, both born in the Royal Oldham hospital, who went to the same school and apply for the same job. If the Bill is enacted, one may be asked by the prospective employer to produce a passport while the other will not.
I have had all the benefits of a white, middle-class education and the privileges that go with it in this society. That has not divorced me so much from reality that I am unable to put myself in the position of one of my constituents who has a dark skin, or unable to share the anger, humiliation and sense that, by being required to produce documentation that someone with white skin is not required to produce, I am being betrayed and made to feel a second-class British citizen. That is why the proposal is deeply racist.
The second point is the effect that the clause will have on the employment prospects of those in our ethnic minority groupings. I shall again refer to Oldham by way of illustration. As a borough, Oldham's economic activity is holding its own. Employment levels are more or less in line with the national average. There are, however, deep contrasts within the borough. In the Saddleworth ward in which I live, unemployment is only about 4 per cent. In many inner Oldham wards, it is 20 per cent. and in the wards with the highest ethnic minority groupings, it is 30 per cent. and more. There is no lack of competition in the area for jobs. Within a 30 minute travel-to-work distance of the centre there are potentially 750,000 people able to look for work.
Before the debate, I rang a friend who employs a number of people on a part-time basis to do contract cleaning work on various short-term projects. The employees come and go. He provides a short service, recruits rapidly and there is a high turnover. People do not expect to work for his company for long. That is not how it works. I believe that he does not have a racist bone in his body. I asked him to explain what documentation the employees he took on for a couple of hours a week would be required to give him. He said that they would probably not reach the tax or national insurance thresholds and so they would not require any documentation. I asked him to let me be devil's advocate, saying, "If this clause goes through, will it really make a difference to how you approach the employment potential of some applicants?" He snapped straight back, "Of course it will. If two people of equal ability come to me, why should I go to more trouble to prove to myself that I am not incurring the risk of a £5,000 fine by employing one rather than the other?" He said that he had enough hassles trying to run his small business, keep his head above water and keep the clients serviced without that extra difficulty and without taking that risk.
This clause will mean worse employment prospects for the Asian community in Oldham and for black people throughout the country. I believe that the Government are playing the race card by proposing clause 8, and they are appealing to the white, Conservative-minded vote that they think exists in this country. If that is the motivation of the Government, it is a disgrace—it is a despicable means of proceeding. This proposal will not work because most people in Britain, and in Oldham, are fair minded—they do not like injustice; they like fair play—and this clause is blatantly unfair. I hope that the Government experience a backlash from decent, fair-minded people as a result of this proposal. The Government will certainly get a backlash from some of the people to whom they normally look for support—small business people.
9.30 pm
Thirdly, the Government are supposed to be lifting the burdens on small businesses in this country—what a joke. How do they call imposing a potential fine of £5,000 on these people—and making them go through hoops to ensure that they do not have to take that risk—lifting the burdens? Nothing could be further from the truth. If it were simply a matter that employers had to be satisfied that their prospective employees could produce a national insurance number, that might not be too bad, but that is not the case. It is well known that national insurance numbers are 10 a penny on the black market if people wish to play the system.
There are those who seek to work illegally and who have a national insurance number, but there are others who have the right to work but who do not have a national insurance number—for example, residents of the European economic area and citizens of Iceland. There are some local benefit agencies that do not give national insurance numbers to young people until they have a job. There is the potential for a vicious circle—a person with black skin who goes along for a job interview is asked to produce his national insurance number, but because he does not have a job he does not have a national insurance number. It is a vicious circle most likely to be detrimental to that person's employment prospects if his skin is black because the chances are that if his skin is white the employer will not ask for that sort of certification.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said that 43 documents are acceptable as evidence of a person's status and fitness to work in this country, including a Liechtenstein passport and a Belgian identity card. How is an employer supposed to know what is a valid piece of documentation?
This is a squalid clause, and it is deeply offensive. The amendment goes a small way to lessening some of the burdens that it will place on business, and I support it.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friends. I speak with great credibility on behalf of Asian business because my constituency has a large number of people who are business men and run small and medium-sized businesses. They employ people and they contribute to the economy of this country. They are very concerned about the implications of this clause—a clause that, in my opinion, is despicable and affects their ability to carry out the requirements of the law and that will affect their businesses.
Clause 8 makes it a criminal offence to employ someone over the age of 16 who does not have an immigration entitlement to work in the United Kingdom. As has been said, the offence carries a punishment of a fine of up to £5,000. That will affect the ability of my constituents and the constituents of all hon. Members who run small businesses. Clause 8 empowers the Home Secretary arbitrarily to add categories of people who are not currently specially prohibited from working—such as people who entered legally but who have overstayed their permitted leave, or people who have appealed against a decision to refuse them further leave to remain—and it would be an offence for an employer to employ them.
An employer accused of employing an illegal immigrant has a possible line of defence if he can prove that he did not believe that he would be committing an


offence by employing that person because he had seen a document specified in an order issued by the Secretary of State. The clause imposes a significant new duty on employers, the neglect of which will result in their incurring criminal penalties.
The proposals assign to employers an immigration control function. I do not believe that that is right. Employers are being required to identify people who have entered illegally or overstayed or who are here lawfully, but are not entitled to do work of the sort offered. Those are policing functions that should be rightly and properly carried out by the immigration and nationality department, not employers. IND staff are specially trained to carry out those functions and are publicly accountable for the performance of their duties. Individual employers, whether they be large or small, will not be accountable for their performance of a public control function. I hope that the Minister will take note of that point, which is also a matter of public concern. In a recent survey, only 10 per cent. of respondents felt that employers should be responsible for immigration control.
Currently, under present law—the Immigration Act 1971 and subsequent Acts—employers may be prosecuted if they knowingly commit offences such as harbouring a person whom they know or believe is not entitled to work in the United Kingdom because of his or her immigration status. Employers may also be prosecuted if they aid or abet a person committing an immigration offence. A provision ensures that legal action can be taken against such people. Those are the intentional acts that directly inhibit effective immigration control.
The proposals contained in clause 8 would make it a criminal offence unknowingly to enter into a contractual relationship with people who, because of their immigration status, are not entitled to work in the UK. In other circumstances, a person does not commit a criminal offence if he or she fails to carry out checks on a person's bona fides before entering into a business relationship or if he or she fails to act to prevent another person from committing or continuing to commit an offence.
The proposals must be understood alongside other provisions in the Bill. They increase police powers, which concerns me. The police whom I know would not like to be given the powers, and the Home Secretary should take note of that. The increased powers of the police to arrest and to enter premises to search for suspects or to collect evidence, which are contained in clause 7, are likely to affect employers and the employment position of ethnic and national minorities. That power gives employers an added incentive to avoid recruiting anyone whose presence would give rise to police suspicion, and employers will be made unnecessarily fearful.
I am also worried about the impact of proposed powers to search for suspects or evidence, which might be used by the police to justify entering the premises of ethnic minority employers, which they already do when immigration officers enter premises and police officers accompany them. There have been circumstances that have caused much concern in the community and the press has reported certain things that might well be perceived as, or constitute, police harassment of ethnic minority communities. The possible implications for community and race relations are self-evident.
The proposals will therefore effectively encourage employers to work on a presumption that all prospective employees who are immigrants are illegal unless they demonstrate otherwise.
The compliance cost assessment, as has been said, puts the total non-recurrent cost of the proposals at more than £13.5 million, which is an enormous burden on business.
I do not condone illegal working. However, having given careful consideration to clause 8, the consultation document and the compliance cost assessment, I am of the view that the Government's proposal to prevent illegal working will not meet their stated objectives in introducing the proposal and, contrary to their express intentions, if implemented as proposed will lead to acts of racial discrimination, reduce equality of opportunity and damage race relations between persons of different groups.
The House should throw out clause 8 because it will damage the interests of business.

Ms Abbott: It is hard to improve on the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), but in the few minutes remaining I want to make it clear that Opposition Members oppose clause 8 in its entirety and say why we aim to ameliorate it by the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson).
This is a proposal about race, and nowhere is the Bill's racist subtext more explicit than in clause 8, which will affect refugees and asylum seekers and has the potential to affect every British citizen who happens to have a black or brown skin or a foreign name.
There is deep hypocrisy at the heart of clause 8. Throughout the Committee stage, Ministers told the Committee that they incorporated the clause in the Bill because of their deep concern about illegal working. Time after time, we hear about their concern about illegal working, and many Conservative Members have wrung their hands and spoken about illegal workers taking jobs from British citizens.
What is the underlying cause of the employment of illegal immigrants? Do we imagine that employers employ illegal immigrants because they are humanitarians or internationalists? The underlying cause is the search for cheap labour. It ill behoves a Conservative Government whose Conservative predecessors, during the 1980s, did more to force down wages than any Government since the war, to weep crocodile tears about illegal workers.
The source of the market for the labour of illegal immigrants is the labour market policies of the Government.

Miss Widdecombe: Oh.

Ms Abbott: It is the source of the market for the labour of illegal immigrants because the Government's labour market policies are designed to force down wages and encourage casual and part-time working. That is the deep hypocrisy at the heart of the clause. The most damaging aspect of the clause is the effect that it will have on the employment prospects of black or brown Britons. Conservative Members have not given serious consideration to the effect of the clause on the


employment prospects of those people. Yet, as we speak, the unemployment rate in London for black males between the ages of 18 and 24 is 60 per cent. That is the official figure: the actual figure is probably much higher.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way? She asked for it.

Ms Abbott: Not from you, sweetheart.
No Conservative Member has seriously addressed the issue of black unemployment. However, as Members of Parliament, we must be aware of the serious social consequences of youth unemployment. I accuse Conservative Members of hypocrisy: how dare they say that they are concerned about the breakdown of the family, crime and social dislocation, when in clause 8 they are enshrining in law measures that will make it even harder for black or brown British citizens to obtain jobs?
9.45 pm
As my hon. Friends have explained, employers will be faced with the prospect of having to shuffle through documentation in order to recognise any one of 43 documents or fall prey to a fine of £5,000. When faced with two potential employees who are equally well qualified, one of whom has a black or brown skin and a foreign name and one of whom is white and clearly British, which of them will even the most decent and honest employer choose?
The most damaging charge levelled against the clause is the very serious effect that it will have on the employment prospects of black or brown Britons. In amendment No. 51, we are attempting to ameliorate the effect of the clause on small business. It was revealed in Committee that 95 per cent. of businesses employ 20 or fewer people. Major employers such as Marks and Spencer may be able to introduce procedures that will not discriminate between employees. However, small employers will have to discriminate on the basis of skin colour, accent or name, or face the prospect of being burdened with excessive expenditure, paperwork and worry.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southall has said, the clause will impact heavily on Asian business people who, under clause 7, are liable to an increased risk of fishing raids by police searching for illegal immigrants. Under this clause, they may fall foul of the law by employing people in good faith.
The Labour party believes that this is a racist Bill, but clause 8 is perhaps the most far-reaching clause and the most damaging to good race relations and to the employment prospects and life chances of black or brown Britons. Even at this late stage, we urge the House to reject this racist and unjust clause in a racist Bill.

Mr. Kirkhope: That was one of the silliest speeches that I have heard for a long time. It was a total waste of a valuable opportunity to discuss a very important clause. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) would not take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)
At the beginning of the debate we heard yet another rant from that well-known Labour ranter, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who did not contribute anything to the debate. The Committee examined clause 8 and everything to do with it thoroughly; every area was explored fully. Yet on Report Labour Members have repeated the same tired rhetoric that we heard in Committee. That does not help anyone.

Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sorry, but I will not. The question is who is and who is not in favour of the measure. The hon. Gentleman trotted out the names of people and their views, but I shall present some different views.
The Forum of Private Business conducted a survey of its members—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh at organisations that represent the small businesses that are so vital to our economy. In response to that survey, 70 per cent. were in favour of
penalising employers who employ illegal workers. This result indicates a substantial majority in favour of controls on the employment of illegal workers and suggests that this policy would have significant support among small business owners.
That clear statement is not untypical of many other statements made by small businesses.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kirkhope: No.
The amendment is clearly an attempt to wreck the clause. As everyone knows, 80 per cent. of British businesses have fewer than 10 employees. According to estimates, the approximate annual turnover of staff in such companies is a maximum of 25 per cent.—or two employees a year. The compliance cost assessment shows that the likely cost to an employer of being required to check the status of an employee would be about 39p.

Ms Abbott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to produce entirely false statistics about cost compliance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I did not hear what the hon. Lady said. If she would address the Chair, I could answer her point of order.

Ms Abbott: Is it in order for the Minister to produce completely false statistics on cost compliance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are statistics, statistics and all sorts of other figures.

Mr. Kirkhope: I have a copy of the compliance cost assessment of the Home Office of November 1995, which went into great detail, as the hon. Lady will have noted in Committee. It states that, in a typical case, the total cost of making such a check, using a photocopy, would be 39p.
The scare tactics of the Opposition are quite disgraceful. They well know that there is a problem. At least 10,000 illegal workers were detected in 1994—a dramatic increase on previous years. The Opposition talk about young people from ethnic minorities being out of


work. We all know that those young people want to work. Those who are working here illegally are denying opportunities to the very people whom the Opposition claim to support.
The hypocrisy lies with the Opposition and not with the Government. Nothing could have emphasised that more than the disgraceful speeches that we have just heard. Allegations were made against the Government that everybody knows are totally wrong and inaccurate.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware that the clause is extremely welcome in my Sikh community in Gravesend? For far too many years, my law-abiding Sikh constituents who work in the construction trade and in market gardening have been fed up with their wage rates being undercut by illegal immigrants.

Mr. Kirkhope: My hon. Friend has said it and it is true. The Opposition are not prepared to accept those facts.
I do not like the incredibly patronising attitude of the Labour party to small business men and women, who know how important it is to check the status of anyone whom they employ. That is why the Forum of Private Business and other small business organisations are not worried about the prospect of carrying out the checks that we propose.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, although he has done so belatedly and with some reluctance. Does he accept that the Federation of Small Businesses is truly representative of the interests of small business in this country?

Mr. Kirkhope: I acknowledge that there are many small business organisations, but I do not accept that one organisation alone is representative of all small businesses. Eighty per cent. of UK businesses have fewer than 10 employees. Those businesses care about their standards and about their employees. To suggest that 42 documents will have to be inspected is unbelievable. The TUC listed 41 documents, not 42—so the Opposition cannot even count. Most of the documents on that so-called list are the passports of every European country. If arguments are exaggerated to that extent, it is not surprising if they begin to lack credibility. That is true of the arguments deployed by Labour Members.
The requests made of employers are perfectly reasonable. The majority of firms, particularly small businesses, already make such checks because they know that the quality of their employees matters to their business. I am sorry that an attempt has been made to wreck the clause with this misplaced amendment. It will not succeed, because I am not prepared to ask the House to support such nonsense. I am disappointed that the opportunity to debate the issue has been used and abused by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.
We believe in good business and in preventing illegal working that takes jobs from people who are legally entitled to them. To believe otherwise cannot be good for people who do not have jobs, or for the country's economy.

Mr. Henderson: The Government have been smoked out over a lot of issues in the past four years. This

evening, they have been smoked out over their real motives for not only clause 8 but the Bill. I will not accuse them of incompetence in this instance because they know what will be the impact of the clause and the Bill. They know that clause 8 will have no impact on identifying illegal workers and that it will only burden employers with unnecessary paperwork. They know that the measure has no support among small businesses.
The Minister cited a survey by the Forum of Private Business, but we were not told of the sample size. It is a strange day for the Conservative party when it will not listen to the Federation of Small Businesses, which has 3 million members.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's stance shows how out of touch they are with small businesses? They are more concerned with excusing late payment. They want to impose more regulations, burden and compliance costs on small businesses.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reiterating that important point. If she had had more time, or had caught Madam Speaker's eye today, she would probably have said that the Government do not care about the measure's impact on community and race relations, which is the most damning feature of the Bill and of clause 8 in particular. Representations have been made by a wide spectrum of interests—Churches, small business organisations, the TUC, Amnesty International and even the CBE. They all hold different views on how workable the proposals are, but all agree that they have damaging implications for race and community relations.
Ninety-four per cent. of businesses in this country employ fewer than 10 people. If the Government care about small businesses or about the people whom they employ and the communities that they serve, they will accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 284.

Division No. 59]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Keith


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Allen, Graham
Burden, Richard


Alton, David
Byers, Stephen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Callaghan, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, D N


Austin-Walker, John
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Barnes, Harry
Chidgey, David


Barren, Kevin
Chisholm, Malcolm


Battle, John
Church, Judith


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clapham, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Coffey, Ann


Betts, Clive
Cohen, Harry


Blunkett, David
Connarty, Michael


Boateng, Paul
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)






Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and Dside)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cummings, John
Jowell, Tessa


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Keen, Alan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dafis, Cynog
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Denham, John
Livingstone, Ken


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dobson, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Donohoe, Brian H
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dowd, Jim
McAllion, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCrea, The Reverend William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Macdonald, Calum


Fatchett, Derek
McFall, John


Faulds, Andrew
McKelvey, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McMaster, Gordon


Flynn, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Don (Bath)
McWilliam, John


Foulkes, George
Madden, Max


Fyfe, Maria
Maddock, Diana


Galbraith, Sam
Mahon, Alice


Galloway, George
Mandelson, Peter


Garrett, John
Marek, Dr John


George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Michael


Gordon, Mildred
Meale, Alan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Grocott, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Gunnell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hain, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hall, Mike
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hanson, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hardy, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug
Mowlam, Marjorie


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Hodge, Margaret
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hoey, Kate
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
Olner, Bill


Hoon, Geoffrey
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)
Parry, Robert


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pearson, Ian


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Hutton, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Johnston, Sir Russell
Quin, Ms Joyce





Radice, Giles
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Raynsford, Nick
Straw, Jack


Reid, Dr John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rendel, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Touhig, Don


Rooker, Jeff
Trickett, Jon


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyler, Paul


Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Salmond, Alex
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheerman, Barry
Watson, Mike


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Short, Clare
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Alan W. (Carmarthen)


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wise, Audrey


Snape, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wray, Jimmy


Spearing, Nigel
Wright, Dr Tony


Spellar, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stevenson, George
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Joe Benton.


Stott, Roger





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carrington, Matthew


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carttiss, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr. Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Ashby, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bates, Michael
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Beggs, Roy
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bendall, Vivian
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Body, Sir Richard
Day, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Sir Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Elletson, Harold


Budgen, Nicholas
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butcher, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butterfill, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Evennett, David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Faber, David






Fabricant, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fishburn, Dudley
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forth, Eric
Lidington, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Luff, Peter


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew


Fry, Sir Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gillan, Cheryl
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, Sir John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hague, Rt Hon William
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moate, Sir Roger


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hawkins, Nick
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jenkin, Bernard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knox, Sir David
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)





Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Sims, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trend, Michael


Soames, Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spencer, Sir Derek
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spink, Dr Robert
Walden, George


Spring, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sproat, Iain
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Stephen, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stewart, Allan
Widdecombe, Ann


Streeter, Gary
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sweeney, Walter
Wilkinson, John


Sykes, John
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Points of Order

Mr. Cynog Dabs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind the grave and rapidly shifting situation at Milford Haven and the accumulating evidence that there has been a failure to deploy resources sufficiently and to do so competently, have you received a request to make a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport tonight, bearing it in mind that I have asked the Leader of the House for such a statement now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I have had no request for a statement on any subject.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it on a new issue?

Mr. Ainger: It is on the same issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I have already made it clear that I have had no request for any statement.

Orders of the Day — Glasgow (Finances)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank Madam Speaker for giving me the opportunity to have this debate. I should also like to thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is to reply to the debate, and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for their presence and support. I know that the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, Trish, is a councillor for the city of Glasgow, and that she will be able to watch this debate through the medium of television.
I should also like to thank Mr. John Brown of the public relations department of the new city of Glasgow authority. He is a brother of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), and he has been extremely helpful in giving me the information that I require for the debate. [Interruption.] He gave that information in a professional capacity.
I note that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. Given such large cuts in the finances of the city of Glasgow, it is only right and fitting that he should meet the leader of Glasgow district council, Councillor Bob Gould, at this time of severe crisis. He should also meet Councillor John Young, the Conservative leader on the city council. Opposition Members do not share his politics, but we know that he has always had a deep concern for the city of Glasgow, where he was born and bred.
Given the cuts of £43 million, it is only right and fitting that a meeting between the Secretary of State and those councillors should take place. The Secretary of State is on record as saying that he wants to get out and meet the people. He said that was why he wanted the Scottish Grand Committee to meet all over Scotland. Given the current crisis in Glasgow, he should meet Councillor Gould, along with Councillor Young.
It is worth noting that the Secretary of State for Wales recently got £15.9 million for the Principality. That money was an extra allocation, and was not part of its original funding formula. The Minister may say that the equivalent money for Scotland was accounted for in the formula that the Government negotiated with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. That cannot be the case, however, because the Welsh formula did not allow for that extra £15.9 million. If that amount of money can be given to Wales, why not to Scotland?
Those cuts of £43 million will mean the loss of 2,000 jobs in a city where the average unemployment rate is 12 per cent. In parts of my constituency and others, the unemployment rate is absolutely horrendous. At one time, the railway workshops offered employment to my local community, but most people now look to local government for employment. The 2,000 lost jobs are important ones, such as home helps—the very ones that should be increased. We should be looking after our elderly men and women who served us when fascism was

at its height. They gave six years of their lives to fight for democracy so that we can be here, yet we are denying them the care that they need in their later years of life.
Schools are being closed that are important to give children in areas of high unemployment and deprivation a chance to get out and make a life for themselves. We are losing sports centres at a time when Conservative Members say that they are worried about the drugs situation. Drugs are a problem in Glasgow, and if we lose sports centres, more and more of our young boys and girls will be put on to the street, and they will be easy prey for the people from whom we are trying to protect them.
We are to lose residential homes. We are also to lose museums. In every service, from social work to education, we are to have closures and loss of services. In education, £12 million will be cut from the budget, which will mean that the price of school meals will go up. Twelve community education centres in the city of Glasgow will close. Three to five secondary schools and 16 primary schools are likely to close.
In Argyllshire, two residential homes that have excellent facilities to get young people out into the countryside to give them the outdoor activities they need will be lost. That will be a loss for the city of Glasgow. It will also mean that employment opportunities will be lost in the rural community of Argyll.
When we had the old slums in our city, it was always said that there was one place that the people could always go free of charge—our parks. We have some of the finest parks anywhere in the world. Kelvingrove park is almost identical to St. James's park across the road from here. It is an excellent place, where people from Maryhill, Anderston—where I was brought up—Woodside and Partick can go. University students enjoy the parks. Boating ponds will also close. They are places where people can take their children and enjoy a day out.
Ruchill, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill, is to lose a bowling green. Shettleston will lose its sports centre. On roads, I am sure that the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club will be deeply concerned that maintenance will be cut by £2.4 million in our city.
Social work is of great concern to all of us. I know that it is of concern to Conservative Members, because many of them have dedicated their parliamentary lives to talking about the handicapped and those in need of social work.
Glasgow's social work budget is to be cut by £9.1 million. That will mean that homes for the elderly will close, at a time when our aging population is increasing. Logic tells us that we need more homes for the elderly, yet the Government are telling our local authority, which has excellent social work homes, to cut its budget.
Many visitors to Glasgow have said that the social work homes in the city are something of which our citizens can be proud. Day centres for the handicapped will close. Mothers who have handicapped children use them to get some respite and to give their young children the chance of a decent education. They give children an opportunity to do something meaningful, and help them in their training and to develop their minds. Spending on nursing homes will be vastly reduced, and there will be a delay in filling social work vacancies.
Museums and art galleries are to lose £1.3 million.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Amid all the other cuts, the social services department is contemplating making cuts of more than £9 million. Where does the Minister expect Glasgow to make alternative savings?

Mr. Martin: I hope that the Minister will tell us what he thinks Glasgow should do. If he does, when the Secretary of State meets Councillors Gould and Young, at least they will have a chance to rebut the case that the Minister makes tonight.
Museums and art galleries are to lose £1.3 million. Haggs castle, the famous museum, is to close; Pollok house, with its famous Burrell collection, will be able to open for only six months each year. Mr. Burrell, who gave a fantastic legacy to our city, must be turning in his grave.
When I was a councillor on the old Glasgow corporation, along with some of my hon. Friends, we spent days on end ensuring that we stuck to the terms of Mr. Burrell's legacy: he left instructions relating to his famous collection. Finally, we were able to house the collection at Pollok house—but it will not help tourism for Pollok house to be open for only six months of the year. People come to see it from all over the world.
Indeed, there is a possibility that all our famous museums—museums to which many of our parents took us—will close for one day each week. The famous Dixon halls, Govan town hall and the Couper Institute must all close, and I do not know where the voluntary organisations that use them will go. The capital programme is to be cut, and there is to be a £30 million cut in the housing budget.
The Conservative party tells us time and again that we are not the friends of the private sector—that we do not care about small business men and private companies. Glasgow's record in ensuring that building companies, large and small, secure work for their employees is second to none; it is the Government who will put not only council employees but private sector workers on the dole. When I was a member of the council, for every council employee, two private employees—two outside contractors—had jobs on the rates and the city treasury. I do not know what the formula is now, but many people in the private sector, including many builders who used to support the Tory party, will be knocking on the Minister's door.
The council tax could rise by between 36 per cent. and 40 per cent. I have never known such an increase in my city: indeed, I have never known such an increase in any city. The Minister who is to reply to the debate said that there was no need to meet councillors in Glasgow, although the council tax may rise from £676 to £944.
I feel that what I have said tonight is enough to make the Minister consider the possibility that he is wrong. If he continues to pursue the current Scottish Office line, Glasgow will suffer. Glasgow has a first-class history, and its administration has a reputation throughout the country for not being what Conservative Members sometimes describe as the lunatic left. Indeed, it is anything but that: it is the most responsible council in the country, and Strathclyde had an excellent reputation for working with the Government and with Europe.
The Government made their biggest mistake a few years ago when they put a Bill through the House to reorganise local government. That has cost everyone a fortune and caused the sadness of serious redundancies.
Strathclyde was abolished along with the other councils because of jealousy. The Government felt that the councils were doing too well in Europe by getting grants and improving the standard of living for the people under their control. They came up with the idea of abolishing local government. The word they used was "reorganisation".
If the figures are true, the Government have not reorganised but abolished local government as we know it. The men and women who were democratically elected are being denied the opportunity to give their electorate a proper service. I hope that the Minister will consider what I have said.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) on securing the debate. It has secured a significant turnout of Opposition Members—a rare occurrence—and I should like to mark the attendance of my Scottish Office ministerial colleagues and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
The debate is timely because, earlier today, many hon. Members were present when we tried to have a briefing about some of the facts behind the local government finance settlement to allow a more informed debate. The House will shortly have the opportunity to debate the order, which, if approved, will enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to pay revenue support grant and the non-domestic rates distributable amount to the 32 new Scottish councils next year.
As usual, the hon. Member for Springburn has spoken with considerable feeling on behalf of his constituents. His speech clearly merits a serious response, and that is what I intend it should receive. Before I deal with the position of Glasgow city council, I remind the House of next year's overall Scottish local government finance settlement, which has two main elements.
The first is the level of Government supported expenditure, or GSE, which is the Government's view of what authorities need to spend to pay debt charges and deliver services. The second element is the level of Government support for that expenditure, which is known as aggregate external finance, or AEF. For next year, GSE has been set at just over £6.168 billion, an increase of 2.3 per cent. on the current year's figure after adjusting for transfers of responsibility between central and local government, so that a like-for-like comparison can be made.
AEF has been set at just under £5.369 billion, an increase of 2.9 per cent. as compared with the current year. In cash terms, the increase in AEF is just over £148 million. That increase is £26.5 million more than the Barnett formula consequences of the English local government settlement. That may sound technical and complex, but it means that £26.5 million has been diverted from other Scottish expenditure programmes to give local authorities more.
The hon. Member for Springburn referred to a figure of £15.9 million in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was well ahead of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales by getting the extra £26.5 million included in the settlement given to local authorities.
One might find it difficult to believe it from the reaction of the Labour party and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but there is no doubt that Scottish local authorities have been treated favourably. This is at a time when both the Government and, although I sometimes doubt it, the Labour party, accept the need to constrain public expenditure.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kynoch: I want to try to get through my speech.
The levels of both GSE and AEF have been increased by significant amounts. That is before any account is taken of the scope for councils to make efficiency savings.
Next year, the level of GSE for Scottish authorities will be 30 per cent. higher per head of population than the comparable amount for English authorities. The level of AEF for Scottish authorities will be no less than 43 per cent. higher than that for English authorities. Yet we continue to hear arguments that the Government are starving the new councils of resources.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has claimed that the councils need an extra £395 million to avoid what he calls "spending cuts". There are two main points to be made in relation to that claim. First, it is totally misleading to talk about spending cuts. All the new councils will be able to increase expenditure next year by at least 2 per cent; the majority will be able to increase spending by more than 3 per cent.
Secondly, those who argue that authorities should be able to spend £395 million more are really saying that GSE should be increased, not by 2.3 per cent. but by 8.9 per cent., which is more than three times the current rate of inflation. Those who argue that councils should be permitted to increase expenditure by £395 million more than the level of increase that the settlement already provides for either want council tax levels to be increased by 40 per cent. more than would otherwise be the case, or AEF to be increased by nearly 11 per cent.
The second option of increasing AEF could be achieved only by cutting one or more of the other Scottish Office block programmes, such as the national health service, to which the hon. Member for Dundee, East referred, industry or higher education. We would not be talking merely about a minor redeployment of resources between programmes. To provide anything like an extra £395 million for local government, major surgery would be required in other expenditure programmes. The reality is that the level of the Scottish block resources is finite, and that more for local government means less for other programmes.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was quoted in The Scotsman newspaper last Saturday as having said:
a Labour Government would not be able to offer a pot of gold to local government or anyone else.
It is a pity that the reality of the Scottish block and formula arrangements was not appreciated more widely on the Opposition Benches, and that the hon. Member for Hamilton persisted in failing to recognise the favourable treatment that local authorities had received in this year's block allocations.
Glasgow city council has received a settlement for next year which, first, gives it a level of AEF of just under £830 million. That is no less than 82 per cent. per head of population higher than the average level for English authorities. Glasgow has by far the highest per capita level of AEF of all the mainland councils. Only the three islands councils have higher levels, as a consequence of their small populations.
Secondly, the settlement enables Glasgow to increase expenditure next year by £40 million, as compared with the level of planned spending in the city in the current year by Strathclyde regional council and Glasgow district council. That is an increase of nearly 5 per cent.

Mr. Wray: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: I want to get through the points that I would like to make to the hon. Member for Springburn.
The council has claimed that it will have to "cut" expenditure by £68 million to come within its capping limit. The council is in fact saying that it would like to increase spending next year by nearly £110 million, or more than 13 per cent., but it has been prevented from doing so by the Government's decision to retain capping. I find the figures astonishing, but I must ask the hon. Member for Springburn whether he can explain why the council thinks that it is necessary to increase spending by between four and five times the rate of inflation.
As we are genuinely interested in devolving greater power to local authorities, we decided with some reluctance to retain capping, but it is now clear that it is just as well for council tax payers in Glasgow that we did, because an extra £68 million of expenditure by the council would have added around 55 per cent. to what the council tax level would otherwise have been.
Local government reorganisation has highlighted the fact that Glasgow has been cross-subsidised by most of the rest of Strathclyde, in terms of both spending levels and council tax levels. Many argue that higher spending levels in Glasgow reflect higher need—however, the formula for distributing resources among authorities, which is agreed with COSLA, already takes account of its greater spending needs.
That is precisely why the council receives by far the highest per capita level of AEF of all the mainland councils. I have already referred to the fact that it is 82 per cent. higher than the average level for English authorities. Both the Scottish Office and COSLA are committed to a review of the distribution formula, but there is no evidence that the existing formula is flawed.
The hon. Member for Springburn referred to libraries, museums and art galleries. I point out to him that the formula for distribution and support for libraries, museums and art galleries is adjusted not only for the population of Glasgow but includes commuters and tourists. The same applies to street clearing, to refuse disposal and to leisure and recreation. There is a weighting in the formula to take account of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
The Government recognise that Glasgow and the other councils that have inherited relatively high levels of expenditure as a result of the skewing of resources by the outgoing regional councils require time to bring their spending levels more into line with their grant-aided expenditure assessments. That is why my right hon. Friend


and I were prepared to accept the COSLA proposals for a three-year transitional scheme to deal with the mismatch problem. Glasgow will receive extra funding of just under £31 million next year directly as a result of that scheme, and a further £15.5 million in 1997–98.
The new Glasgow council must also seek to improve council tax payment levels within the city—at present, these are the lowest in Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, East is laughing. Until now, non-payment within Glasgow has been subsidised by council tax payers and the rest of Strathclyde.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Would it not be best if the Minister and the Secretary of State met Councillor Gould and Councillor Young to talk these matters over?

Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put together a delegation to see my right hon. Friend and me, we will be only too happy to meet them. Now that Glasgow is on its own, it is clearly in the interests of those in the city who pay their bills and of the council that every effort is made to bring payment levels more into line with the position in the rest of the country.
For example, I understand that Glasgow council is assuming a 90 per cent. level of payment, which compares with a payment assumption of 94 per cent. for the whole of Strathclyde, and 88 per cent. for Glasgow in the current period. If Glasgow were to increase its assumed payment rate by 5 per cent. to 95 per cent.—which is the existing level in Edinburgh and Dundee—the tax increase would be reduced by some £50. If it actually reached the level that is pertinent in Aberdeen—which is 97 per cent.—the tax increase would be reduced by some £70.

Mr. Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kynoch: No, I will not—the hon. Member for Springburn has secured this debate, and I wish to address the points that he raised.
While I do not deny that the new Glasgow council faces a range of difficult decisions, the truth of the matter is that, within an overall favourable settlement, it has been treated generously. It has scope to increase spending next year by £40 million—or almost 5 per cent.—and it has received by far the highest per capita level of AEF of all the new mainland councils. Its special difficulties have been recognised by the provision of almost £31 million from the mismatch transitional scheme.
The council could receive more money only by increasing the overall local government settlement, at the expense of other Scottish expenditure programmes; or by skewing the distribution even more in Glasgow's favour, at the expense of other Scottish councils.
Reference was made to savings. I say to the hon. Member for Springburn that, on the radio, I heard a councillor from Glasgow refer to £500,000 being spent by the council on a celebration of the centenary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I question whether that is wise funding at a time when Glasgow is crying out that it is short of funds.
In the light of all that I have said, I do not think that there is justification for either of the steps that I have talked about. The council must use the resources that are available to it in the most effective and efficient way. I ask the councillors to be responsible in setting their budget, to think of the council tax payers, and to look at the cost-effective delivery of service. I hope that a budget will be set that is sensible and reasonable for the people of Glasgow.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.